Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION (AMENDMENT
OF RULES) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sports Strategy

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on progress with the development of the Government's sports strategy. [91339]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We are making excellent progress with the development of our sports strategy. I expect to publish it in the autumn. It will focus on three priority areas: sport in schools, lifelong participation in sport and excellence at national and international level.

Dr. Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the success of the American women's football

team in the women's world cup can be put down to the legislation known as Title 9, which was passed in 1972 and barred schools and colleges from federal funding unless they provided equal sporting opportunities for girls and women? What will he be doing to ensure that schools and colleges in this country provide good opportunities for women and girls to participate in sport, since we clearly need to take radical action if we are to improve our sporting performance?

Mr. Smith: One of the central themes of our report will be to ensure that everyone, regardless of age, gender, ethnic background or ability, has the chance to participate in and enjoy sport. We want to make sure, in particular, that girls have full opportunities at school to develop their sporting ability. The development of the new school sports co-ordinators with support from the national lottery will, I hope, go a long way towards achieving that.
If I have a slight criticism of my hon. Friend, it is that she does not pay enough tribute to some of our national women's sporting teams, which are doing extremely well in a number of different sports.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State has mentioned sport in schools. Will he intervene directly with Lancashire county council, which has cut by half the amount of time in which pupils in years 5 and 6 can be taught swimming? He will appreciate not only that swimming is important as one of the best forms of exercise, but that swimming skills can save lives. The rhetoric about sport in schools is fine, but youngsters are now having only half the swimming lessons that they were receiving only 12 months ago. Will the right hon. Gentleman intervene directly with Lancashire county council to restore to youngsters the swimming lessons that they desperately need?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of swimming, particularly for pupils' future life-saving abilities and as a good, healthy exercise for


young people. I shall certainly want to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

Ms Gisela Stuart: I am the trustee of an organisation called Local Leagues, which is based in Birmingham and aims to encourage children to play sports, particularly football and cricket, outside school hours. One of the problems that we are facing is the availability of suitable fields in the city. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his Department co-ordinates action with the Department for Education and Employment and local government to ensure that there is access to appropriate sites and to schools outside school hours?

Mr. Smith: I will indeed. The new opportunities fund, which uses new funds from the national lottery, will assist my hon. Friend in two ways. First, the money for out of school hours clubs will mean that sporting activities can be promoted and financially supported. Secondly, the green spaces initiative, which the new opportunities fund is undertaking, will enable new green areas and playing fields to be created where they are needed.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: What sports and initiatives for the over-50s are contained in the action plan? Will the right hon. Gentleman state what will happen to ballroom dancing, which is a major sport for the over-50s?

Mr. Smith: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that sport for the over-50s will feature in our report, because part of the report's main thrust is lifelong participation in sport and sporting activity. On the specific question of ballroom dancing, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: As part of the Government's wider sporting strategy, we are bidding to host the 2006 world cup, which will act as a spur to youngsters, particularly in football. My right hon. Friend will know that the issue of Manchester United and the FA cup is causing great concern. Will he tell us what the Government's latest position on that is?

Mr. Smith: That is a matter for the Football Association and Manchester United, not the Government. However, the Minister for Sport and I have made it clear that we hope that Manchester United will be able to play in the world tournament in Brazil, because that is important for the success of our 2006 world cup bid, and if a sensible way can be found for Manchester United to participate in the FA cup as well, no one would be more pleased than us.
I take this opportunity to pay considerable tribute to the work that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport has done in promoting our 2006 world cup bid. Indeed, if we are successful next year in securing the world cup for England, it will be in no small measure due to his efforts.

Mr. Richard Spring: As the dear, revered leader and Alastair Campbell plan the Front-Bench reshuffle this week, may I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will survive the experience? When Rodney Walker, David Oxley, Trevor Brooking

and Craig Reedie are forced to appeal direct to the Prime Minister, does he not recognise that, in practice, the Government are busily destroying sport in schools?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and such a remark comes ill from a representative of a party that sold off more than 5,000 school playing fields during its time in office.

New Books

Dr. Howard Stoate: What assessment he has made of the investment in new books made in each of the past three years by library authorities; and if he will make a statement. [91341]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Data collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy show that library expenditure in England on books and pamphlets was £83.4 million in 1996–97, £74.5 million in 1997–98 and an estimated £77.5 million in 1998–99. The level of book expenditure will be covered in the new national library standards that we aim to introduce in 2000–01.

Dr. Stoate: Does my hon. Friend agree that that rather unsatisfactory result has been produced by the previous Government's failure to invest properly in libraries and education in general? What do the Government intend to do to rectify the situation, and what will their proposals mean to my constituents in Dartford?

Mr. Howarth: Sadly, my hon. Friend is right about the very destructive squeeze on libraries expenditure which we inherited. Local authorities have had their best settlement for seven years. They also have a statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient service, and my right hon. Friend and I are determined that they should do so. Hitherto, a comprehensive and efficient service was never defined, but we are requiring local authorities to produce annual library plans and we are in discussion with the Library Association and the Local Government Association to develop public libraries standards, which will include a benchmark for new book purchasing.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Government expenditure under this Administration is less than under the previous Administration. In 1995–96 it was £171 million; in 1999–2000 it is £90 million. How can the Minister justify that?

Mr. Howarth: I do not seek to justify the plans that we were driven to adopt from the previous Administration.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: In the 20th century, our use of leisure and workplace time has changed and many of us need access to libraries on Saturdays and Sundays. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Library Association and the Local Government Association about achieving fuller opening on Saturday afternoons and all-day opening on Sundays?

Mr. Howarth: The vision that my hon. Friend holds out is very attractive, and that is one of the matters we are considering in our discussions with the Library


Association about standards for libraries; but he will be well aware that opening libraries for the hours that we would both wish would be costly.

Regional Theatres

Mr. David Ruffley: If he will make a statement on the funding of regional theatres. [91342]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Some 27 per cent.—more than £50 million—of grant in aid distributed by the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards is planned to go to drama, including regional theatres, in 1999–2000. In addition, in recognition of the difficulties that many regional theatres continue to face, the Arts Council is undertaking a review of producing theatre in the regions.

Mr. Ruffley: Can the Minister give me an assurance that Eastern Arts will not cut the funding to the Theatre Royal, Bury St. Edmunds, in the coming financial year?

Mr. Howarth: Funding for Eastern Arts from grant in aid is up 15.4 per cent. It is for Eastern Arts to judge how to distribute that funding across theatres in its region.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will be aware of the theatre by the lake development in my constituency—beside the lake beneath the trees. He will know that it is possibly the most innovative theatre development in western Europe. When will Ministers in his Department be coming to visit us?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend's invitation is seductive. I know about his determination in representing his constituency, and it would be difficult for us, even were we minded to do so, to decline his invitation.

National Lottery

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the performance of the national lottery in relation to funds raised for (a) good causes and (b) the new opportunities fund. [91343]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): At the end of June 1999, over £7.7 billion had been raised for the good causes, including £564 million for the new opportunities fund. Earlier this month, the new opportunities fund announced its first awards, worth £1.8 million, for the out of school hours child care programme. That is creating a total of nearly 9,000 new out of school child care places. Twelve new summer holiday play schemes funded by NOF opened today.

Mr. Swayne: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some things ought properly to be paid for out of taxation and that, had that been the case, the original good causes would now be £3.7 billion better off?

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic escapes him. As I said earlier, £564 million has been made available for the new opportunities fund to

date. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, during the licence period, at least £1.85 billion is available to each of the original good causes, which is more than they were originally expected to receive. Would the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench remove that funding for out of school places? Would they remove the holiday play schemes and cut the funding for child care? That is the implication of what they are asking us to do.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I express appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the initiative that he took to help the former coal mining areas? We look forward to further developments in that respect. May I make a special plea? Some of the mining villages, which had to depend on the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation for sport and recreational activities, now find that there is a tremendous shortage of such activities. Such facilities as could be provided are important for some of those villages. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that this issue is not lost and that small villages, such as Sharlstom in my constituency, can look forward to some assistance to develop their recreation and entertainment facilities?

Mr. Smith: I can, indeed, give my hon. Friend that assurance. Part of the findings of the research that we have undertaken demonstrates that the former coalfield areas have not done as well as the national average in terms of their receipt of funds from the lottery. That applies across the board, including arts and sport. We are now undertaking urgent work with the lottery distributers to try to rectify that imbalance.

Television Licence Concessions

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will report progress on the review of concessions relating to the television licence. [91344]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The BBC funding review panel, which is examining the structure of the concessionary licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available, will report to my right hon. Friend very shortly. Copies of the report will be sent to all Members of the House. There will then be a period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I recognise that six different groups of concessions prevail, but is the Minister in favour of looking again at the rather meagre £1.25 reduction for blind people and at whether the concession should be extended to deaf people? Is not this whole problem created by the fact that this is a classic case of "create an exception and anomalies abound"?

Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is right. I reassure him that the Government accept that the reduction currently available to blind people is of little help. The review panel will no doubt wish to consider this matter in the context of the concessionary arrangements as a whole, but I would not want to pre-empt its recommendations. We recognise that past attempts to address the anomalies of the concessionary scheme


individually have done nothing to improve the scheme. That is why the review panel has been asked to consider the scheme as a whole.

Mr. David Winnick: Does not the Department receive more correspondence on this subject than on any other? Since I tried to introduce a private Member's Bill on this issue on 16 January 1987, the problem has not gone away. Why is it not possible for a scheme to be introduced giving the over-70s a reduction of a third or a half? Pensioners up and down the country are asking for a concession. They are right to do so, and it is time the House of Commons acted.

Janet Anderson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area to highlight the issue. He is right that the Department receives more correspondence on this matter than on any other subject. There has been some speculation in the press that the panel may recommend withdrawing the concession from existing beneficiaries. The panel has yet to report, and I cannot anticipate its recommendations. However, there is no question that the Government would withdraw the concession, and we hope that the review panel, when it reports, will propose different options to improve the scheme, one of which may be my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady is taking the concessions issue seriously. Does she share my surprise that an organisation that currently receives about £2.25 billion a year from a hypothecated tax seems to think that that is not enough? Should not the BBC start by redefining what the licence fee is for, before digging further into the pockets of television viewers?
I know that the hon. Lady is not short of advice on broadcasting. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is today making a speech which provides further unsought advice. May I offer her some pleasant holiday reading? Our submission to the BBC funding review panel, entitled "Fair Funding for the BBC", contains some helpful advice on concessions.

Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman was a parliamentary private secretary in this Department under the previous Government, and I am glad that he continues to take a serious interest in the funding of the BBC. The BBC plays a central role in our aspirations for broadcasting and for the delivery of high-quality public service output into the digital age. The aim of the review is to ensure the BBC's continuing ability to meet its obligations to its viewers and its listeners, and to operate successfully in a competitive marketplace.
The Government have, time and again, made it plain that we believe that the licence fee is sustainable at least until the run-up to the renewal of the BBC's charter in 2006. Though an imperfect funding mechanism, it is the best means of providing the BBC with sufficient security to continue to meet its obligations to its audiences, and to invest in the future of broadcasting.

Local Commercial Radio

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What representations he has received on the regulation of local commercial radio broadcasting. [91345]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The Government frequently receive representations on the regulation of local commercial radio broadcasting from industry organisations, radio companies and other interested parties. The Government recently published the results of our consultation on the convergence Green Paper, in which we addressed the wide-ranging responses about the licensing and regulation of radio.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she share my concern that local commercial radio has become less local? I am informed that GWR owns 33 local radio stations and HBA owns 27. It often seems that the same music is played on all the stations at the same time, from a national play list. Some good local musicians and the Musicians Union are frustrated that they cannot get their music played on local radio. Can my hon. Friend suggest what can be done to make local radio more local?

Janet Anderson: My hon. Friend is right. It is certainly true that the programming of the larger groups such as GWR, Capital and Emap is based on central playlists, but there will be station variations, particularly when certain music is more popular in one area than in another.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question, essentially, is that it is for the radio stations to specify their intended formats when they apply for a licence. That could include a commitment to promote local music. It is for the Radio Authority to award a licence to the applicant that it considers offers the format that will best meet local needs. I know that that continues to be a priority for the authority, and it is precisely because of public concerns such as this that it is nervous of any further relaxation of the ownership rules.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady pay tribute to Tony Stoller, the chief executive of the Radio Authority, and his deputy David Vick, for the regulation of radio? Over the past five years, radio has expanded more in this country than during any other period. Does the hon. Lady accept, however, that companies such as GWR are now interested in obtaining digital licences? What assurance can she give that there will be no added levy on either radio or television digital licences?

Janet Anderson: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the two people who look after the Radio Authority. As for his question about speculation in the press, it was a good try, but I will not pre-empt the outcome of the review panel's findings.

Youth Sports

Ms Linda Perham: What support his Department provides for youth sports. [91346]

Mr. John Bercow: What plans he has to increase the opportunities for young people to play sports. [91347]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): The Government fund Sport England to develop programmes for young people. They do that through their active schools programme, which aims to provide every young person with the opportunity to learn foundation skills and participate in the sport or physical activity of his or her choice. Current initiatives include top play, BT top sport, coaching for teachers, sportsmark and the sporting ambassadors scheme. New developments will include the appointment of up to 600 active schools co-ordinators and the launch of the active primary schools award. In addition, Sport England will be introducing its active sports programme in the year 2000, with the aim of helping children and young people to achieve more from their chosen sport.

Ms Perham: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he join me in congratulating the young people of the London borough of Redbridge, who in each of the past 10 years have finished first or second in the London Heathrow youth games—the biggest sporting event for young people in Europe?
The millennium youth games will take place next year. What can my hon. Friend's Department do to ensure that the impetus of that event, which will involve 250,000 young people in the United Kingdom, will not be lost, at a time when local councils' sports development budgets are being cut?

Mr. Banks: I know of my hon. Friend's close association with the London Heathrow youth games. It goes back some years, as does my own. Indeed, mine goes back somewhat longer, to the days of the Greater London council and the establishment of the games. [Interruption.] It has all been said before, Madam Speaker.
Redbridge has done particularly well, and I congratulate it on its active promotion of school sports. I hope that my borough of Newham will achieve a similar distinction at next year's games. The London Heathrow youth games have produced some of our best athletes: Steve Backley, whom I saw at the AAA championships in Birmingham on Saturday, is one of its products, as is John Regis. It is great to see that the games can be used as a way of encouraging our young talent. We in the Department will do all that we can to ensure their further development, and to extend them throughout the country—as they will be extended in the millennium youth games.

Mr. Bercow: Many schools in my Buckingham constituency complain that there is now less time for sport than ever before, and despite the admirable efforts of the Lawn Tennis Association, only 10 per cent. of schools in Britain are currently members of the British Schools Tennis Association. What evidence can the hon. Gentleman offer the House that state schools—of which

he and I are both products—now offer children more opportunities to play and learn tennis than before he took office?

Mr. Banks: It is at times like that—when I hear that the hon. Gentleman and I have had a shared experience—that I wish I had come from Eton, but I did not. There has been a marked falling off in competitive sport in schools. Between 1987 and 1994, it declined by about 75 per cent. That is not unconnected, I might add, with the disputes that the Conservative party had with teachers when it was in government. We are doing what we can to encourage competitive sport between schools and in school.
With regard to tennis, the LTA is putting a considerable amount of money—about £30 million a year—into the development of tennis at the grass roots. We have had much discussion about that. The LTA is specifically aiming at encouraging tennis in state schools and in inner-city areas, where enormous talent, we believe, is waiting to be identified and developed. I share with the hon. Gentleman a great desire for us to recapture, one day, the men's singles title at Wimbledon, which remains our most highly valued but elusive sports triumph—not excluding the world cup.

Ms Bridget Prentice: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason why competitive sport in schools has failed so miserably in recent years is the fact that the Conservative Government presided over the sale of 5,000 school playing fields, as well as a drop of some 70 per cent. in competitive fixtures between state schools? Does he think that active school co-ordinators may have a role in trying to rectify that?

Mr. Banks: At this sensitive time in the political cycle, perhaps cross-party recriminations can be put on one side, although, of course, I agree with my hon. Friend: we are doing our best to clear up the mess that we inherited. The whole idea of the 600 active school co-ordinators is to bring back to our schools that degree of inter-school competitive sport that is so missing and which causes many problems in a number of team sports at national and international level. That is the co-ordinators' aim. It is also to create greater links between schools and local sports clubs.
I hope that, over the years, these policies will come to fruition, which will mean, we hope, more medals and championships, and higher quality sport at national and international level.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the Minister for Sport convey to his beloved Chelsea football club our appreciation that it has decided to come to Northern Ireland to play a match against Omagh, and to provide a training camp for young people in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that visits by top-class sporting representatives of all sports to the regions of the United Kingdom give real incentive and encouragement to young people to acquire skills and to develop their sporting interest? Will he give us assistance in Northern Ireland to ensure that the Sports Council for Northern Ireland can provide even better facilities for all our young people there?

Mr. Banks: I am delighted to be able to pass on to my friends at Chelsea football club the thanks of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I will have to speak in tongues in order to communicate with them, but I am more than happy to do so. I look forward to going to see that match because, as he knows, I was born in Belfast. It is nice to see the way in which the two can come together.
I am not the Northern Ireland Minister for Sport. For the life of me, I do not know who is, but I am sure that someone will refresh my memory in due course. [HON. MEMBERS: "It's you."] Perhaps it is me, but no one told me.
For many years, I have thought that a national stadium for the Northern Irish football team, for example, is desperately needed. I will do everything I can to support any calls or moves to construct one in that part of the country.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I wish the Minister well in whatever changes this week may bring? Our Monday gatherings would not be the same without him. Does he agree that, when considering how to encourage younger people into sport, the professional bodies in sport should set a good example? We have heard from the Secretary of State earlier, but I should like the Minister's views on the decision to allow Manchester United to opt out of next season's FA cup, and to shut the door on compromise solutions—which his own Secretary of State has supported—suggested by the Football Association and others. What type of example does such a decision set for young people, and what message does it send to fans?

Mr. Banks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern. All I can say is that I am sure that he will keep his job a lot longer than I shall keep mine, if only because I intend to retire at 65.
My right hon. Friend has already made the point that it would have been very good—it will still be very good, if it is at all possible—to have Manchester United playing in both competitions. However, I should also tell the hon. Gentleman that considerable effort was made to try to find a way of helping Manchester United out of its fixture congestion in January, when the world club championship is due to be played, so that it could remain in both competitions. So far, although great efforts have been made in the past, and undoubtedly efforts will be made in future, it has not proven possible to do that.
Nevertheless, the idea that I could personally order Manchester United out of the FA cup—or that I could instruct the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Football Association, the premier league and the board of Manchester United—would necessarily mean that my power is awesome. I am afraid that, as much as I should like it to be, it is not. Therefore, good offices will continue to be used, and I shall, as ever, keep the hon. Gentleman closely informed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fire Precautions

Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on fire precautions and procedures in the millennium dome. [91369]

Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will list the fire precautions at the millennium dome; and if he will make a statement. [91371]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Fire safety engineering has been at the heart of the designs for the millennium experience from the outset. Comprehensive strategies have been developed and employed in partnership with the New Millennium Experience Company's own fire consultants and with the local authority. The NMEC has aimed to ensure that the risk of fire occurring is minimised and that, should a fire occur, occupants are able to move to safety quickly and in a controlled manner.

Mr. Robathan: Last week, I visited the dome. Before the reshuffle, would the Secretary of State pass on my thanks, and those of hon. Members on both sides of the House, to Lord Falconer for his role in that visit?
Very many—possibly the majority—of visitors to the dome will be children, and great effort is being made to encourage disabled people to visit it. The reassuring response that the Minster has just given notwithstanding, on that visit it seemed to me and to other hon. Members that in such an enclosed space—which will contain many children and disabled people—there was the possibility of some real safety problems. Will the Minister further reassure the House and say what specific action she has taken to look after the needs of disabled people should there be a fire or any other emergency at the dome?

Janet Anderson: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed his visit to the dome—140 hon. Members made the visit, and were very impressed with what they saw. It is important that the public should be reassured about public safety, and I make it clear that, in planning the event, safety—including that of the disabled and of children—has been our prime concern. I should also like to repeat the remarks of Ian Johnston, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, at this morning's launch of "Big Time", which will be the new year's eve party. He said:
We have great confidence that we can provide a safe and secure environment where the public can enjoy themselves at this exciting event.

Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister estimate how long it would take to evacuate the dome in the event of an emergency, and how long it would take for the emergency services to enter the dome in such circumstances? Do she and the Department have any plans to co-ordinate emergency procedures for the many tourists whom we hope will come from other European countries?
Perhaps they could give some guidance to those who, in the event of a fire, might be evacuated from the new ghastly European Parliament building in Strasbourg.

Janet Anderson: The hon. Lady never misses a trick—I am not sure that the building to which she refers is our responsibility.
The fire precaution strategies at the dome have ranged from careful sizing and positioning of protected corridors and exits to the selection of construction materials which themselves have a low fire load. Active measures have been adopted, with large smoke extract fans incorporated into the dome roof and sprinklers included, where appropriate, in enclosed spaces.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: How long would it take?

Janet Anderson: Hang on a minute. The New Millennium Experience Company has carried out a number of computer simulations including, for example, the time taken for occupants to move to safety. We recognise that the timing is important, and I hope that we can give the House some more accurate information nearer the time.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in this House, and she must take with a large amount of salt the co-ordinated questions on fire safety at the millennium dome that have been tabled today. Is not it a fact that the Opposition have lost the battle? They have consistently criticised the dome and tried to undermine it as an enterprise. It is now on track to become an enormous success, and all they can do is try to raise a public scare about something that has been extremely well catered for. Are not they a pathetic Opposition, who are now realising what a success the millennium dome will be?

Janet Anderson: I have been reassured by Opposition Members' support for the project. Following conversations with Opposition spokesmen, I am aware that they now share our opinion that the project will be a great success.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Not for the first time, may I put on record the Opposition's continuing and consistent support for the project—which, you will recall, Madam Speaker, originated under the Conservative Government? It is utter nonsense to pretend that we have criticised and carped about it. I have pointed that out several times in this place.
While acknowledging that one of the many thousands of tasks that needs to be completed over the next 159 days is ensuring public safety, may I ask the Minister to join me in congratulating Jennie Page and all those working on the site, who have never lost heart in the project and have been inspired by it? That inspiration—despite the regrettable public attitude that still exists—is the best hope that the dome will soon be a great success.

Janet Anderson: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Jennie Page, and to David Trench, the construction director at the dome. Their contribution to making sure that the project is on time and

on target has been beyond the call of duty. Hon. Members will wish to know that the New Millennium Experience Company has produced its annual report and accounts, which will be available in the Vote Office. All hon. Members will receive a millennium bulletin from us shortly, which will keep them up to date with further developments.

Dome

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps are being taken to ensure that cooking smells in the millennium dome are neutralised. [91370]

The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The majority of kitchens in the dome have an air extraction plant which takes the air out of the dome. A few have filtered air-cleaning systems. Both will ensure that cooking smells are kept to a minimum.

Mr. Prentice: That was a good answer to something that has been perplexing me. There are to be 37 eating outlets in the dome, as I learned when I joined the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) in a visit there a few days ago. One of the 37 is McDonald's, which will be opening its 1,000th outlet in the UK. It occurred to me that we should use the dome to celebrate the great regional dishes and culinary diversity of this country. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the 37 outlets will include restaurants where we can sample some of the great United Kingdom dishes of which we are so fond?

Janet Anderson: I understand that the 37 outlets cover a diversity of eating opportunities. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

The President of the Council was asked—

Millennium Compliance

Mr. James Plaskitt: What progress is being made on the state of readiness of the national infrastructure in preparation for the millennium date change. [91379]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The latest results of the independent assessments of key sectors and processes of the infrastructure were announced at the national infrastructure forum on 13 July. They show that key elements including water, telecommunications, postal services, benefit payments, cash distribution and railway safety systems have achieved blue status, indicating that the assessments have not identified any risk of material disruption over the date change period, which is of course welcome news.
There has been good progress since the previous report in April, but there is still much to complete in some programmes. Local authorities and financial institutions have a small number of reds, indicating that they are significantly behind in their preparations and will require


a concerted effort over the next few months to avoid possible material disruption to their services over the date change and beyond.

Mr. Plaskitt: Six local authorities have been given a red classification, one of which is Warwick district council. The assessment appears to have been based on a questionnaire organised by KPMG. Warwick district council is fully ready in terms of outcomes and is of the view that there is a very low risk of material disruption, but it was given a red because of KPMG's emphasis on processes, which has given a misleading impression. Before there is a further check on progress, will my right hon. Friend review the assessment criteria so that they focus more on outcomes and less on processes?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has made an interesting contribution and made it plain how complex these matters can be. It is not for me to say whether Warwick council deserves a clean bill of health, but the Government offices are working closely with all the named authorities and will be anxious to pursue with the council the issues that he raised.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the President of the Council accept that there is still considerable uncertainty, and some anxiety, about the date change and all that it implies? She has not given us a monthly report for July, as she said she would. Will we get that tomorrow in the House? Does she accept that the booklet that has been distributed is strong on reassurance but weak on warning? If she makes a statement tomorrow, will she tell members of the general public which areas they should keep an especial watch on? When will she name names?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means by that last remark, because we are publishing all the information that we can. Of course he is right to say that some uncertainty remains, and that is likely to continue all the way through, because those who give certain responses do not know what they are talking about. I anticipate publishing the July results in the very near future: over the next day or so.
The hon. Gentleman said that the booklet was weak on warning. We sought to ensure that people know where to go for information, and to keep that information as up-to-date as possible. We will continue to do that. Action 2000 has been publishing the latest results in a series of newspaper advertisements that began a few days ago.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Can I take it from that reply that there will be no statement to the House until October at the earliest? Surely we should have one tomorrow.

Mrs. Beckett: No. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the practice has been a quarterly statement to the House. That will continue.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady said monthly.

Mrs. Beckett: I said that we would publish the information monthly. We will publish the July information in a written answer. That will be followed through in August and September. We are seeking means

to make that information available to every Member of Parliament, so we shall ensure that the House is kept informed even during the recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Thursday Sittings

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What assessment she has made of the impact of the experiment in relation to sittings on Thursdays. [91380]

Dr. Ian Gibson: What assessment she has made of the experiment in relation to Thursday sitting hours. [91383]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee published a report last Monday that concluded that the majority of hon. Members consider that the experiment has been a success and should be continued in the next Session.

Dr. Starkey: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from reducing the hours that the House sits—a misleading statement often made by the Opposition—the changes mean that a full day's business can be taken on Thursdays? On average, the House has sat for an hour longer a day since the experiment began. Is not that further proof that this Government are more open to scrutiny than the previous Administration?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is right to say that the report from the Modernisation Committee makes it clear that the same important topics are being discussed and that substantive motions have been voted on. Most important, it shows that, on Thursdays, there has been, on average, an extra hour's business. That gives the House more time to discuss important matters.

Dr. Gibson: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that the questions asked on a Thursday are classier, sharper and more political than questions asked at other times? Has he any evidence that the work done on a Friday by hon. Members who can get home to start the weekend's constituency work earlier has had benefits for our constituents?

Mr. Tipping: Hon. Members have to balance the needs of the House with those of their constituents. Finishing at 7 pm on a Thursday allows hon. Members to spend a full day extra in their constituencies. I have watched how my hon. Friend performs on a Thursday, when he is sharp and to the point. The Modernisation Committee report also found evidence that takings at the bar on a Thursday night have fallen. Perhaps my hon. Friend, given his sharpness and clarity on a Thursday, does not indulge on a Wednesday night.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware that the picture is very different if the time devoted in our proceedings to procedure motions and timetable motions is subtracted from the total hours that the House sits, and that in fact less time is given to real Government scrutiny? Will he explain the benefit of taking up the House's time with measures such as the Railways Bill, which we considered last week and which cannot proceed in the time available?

Mr. Tipping: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he will see that fewer procedural motions have been tabled under this Government than under the previous Administration. He should reflect on the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who last week rightly described the hooligan elements in the House whose actions have led to a greater focus on procedural motions. People outside the Chamber want a House of Commons that debates the core issues, not silly game-playing.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Liberal Democrats welcome the extension of the Thursday sittings experiment. It is rare for a measure to be popular with hon. Members and to the best advantage of the country.
Does the Minister agree that further changes are needed to ensure that the House is even more effective at holding the Government to account, at passing sensible legislation and at providing proper representation? Will he undertake that the pace and development of the Modernisation Committee's work will be maintained?

Mr. Tipping: A number of measures have made major changes to the House's work. In particular, I believe that the focus on pre-legislative scrutiny will have a profound and long-lasting effect. I am delighted that the Westminster Hall experiment will begin when we return for the next Session. That will allow an opportunity for further modernisation, and give Back-Bench Members a chance to raise matters of constituency importance. There has been change, and there will continue to be change.

Visitor Facilities

Angela Smith: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals the Commission has evaluated for the provision of facilities for visitors to the Houses of Parliament. [91381]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Plans have been prepared to convert Westminster Hall cafeteria into a centre for visitors to the Houses of Parliament in 2002, after Portcullis house opens. The centre will provide alternative catering facilities. I am pleased to say that good progress on the new building means that it may be possible to bring forward the conversion to 2001. The relevant Committees and officials of the House are now examining options.

Angela Smith: Many of us welcome the hon. Gentleman's answer, but while we enjoy our constituents' visits, they are often spoiled by the lack of refreshment facilities for them. I speak as someone who was ticked off by the Serjeant at Arms Department for allowing my

cubs to eat their sandwiches in the one of the W Rooms off Westminster Hall—I had to send them outside in the rain. While we welcome the proposed use of the Westminster Hall cafeteria, could we not use the hall itself, which is used for lobbies and functions, to provide special facilities in the interim period?

Mr. Kirkwood: That would be difficult. One of the difficulties that the Commission always faces is that the uses to which the precincts of the Palace—both the House of Commons and the Lords—are put are constrained by architectural and national heritage considerations. The hon. Lady's point is well made. I encourage her to continue to press the House of Commons Commission and the appropriate Committees to put pressure on all the available authorities to improve what is available for our constituents and other visitors. The conditions are certainly inadequate and need to be improved, but we are doing all that we can.

Portcullis House

Mr. Paul Flynn: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the original estimate and what is his latest estimate of the cost of Portcullis house. [91382]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): The estimated cost of Portcullis house, as agreed by the House of Commons Commission in 1993, was £165 million, including construction costs, furnishings, fees, value added tax and an element for risk. At the time, the forecast inflation for 1992–99 was between £51 million and £62 million. The present forecast outturn costs to the original brief for construction fees, furnishings, VAT and risk remain at £165 million at 1992 prices, but inflation in 1992–2000 is now estimated at £56 million. Approved changes to the original brief have added a cost of £4 million and £10 million is attributed to delays caused by London Underground Ltd.'s work on Westminster station. The current overall estimate is, therefore, £235 million.

Mr. Flynn: It seems unfair that inflation occurred in those years, which seems to be a total surprise to the relevant authority. Has the hon. Gentleman noted that the cost of that single building is 10 times the cost of the Welsh Assembly building? There is another difference—the Welsh Assembly building is beautiful. Is he satisfied that the Commission used the right financial rigour in its advance financial planning?

Mr. Kirkwood: The contractual arrangements that were agreed by the House in 1993 are industry-standard. The provisions made for inflation were agreed and known at the time. The estimates are not out of line. They were between £51 million and £62 million and, in the event, it looks as though inflation is likely to be somewhere between the two, at £56 million. The building should be judged on the basis of value for money. It is designed to last for 200 years. If the low maintenance and running costs meet the design specifications, the building will truly be seen to have been good value for money in 200 years' time. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hang around and make representations


at that time, I will be here to try to ensure that true judgments can be made then, when the full value of the building can be judged.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that the taxpayer has to foot the bill for Portcullis house, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that all relevant work has been subject to competitive tender?

Mr. Kirkwood: Indeed it has. All the normal European and other contract compliance rules have been fully taken into account and executed in the operation of the contract. The Commission has undertaken a mid-term review, which has just been completed by the consultants, Northcroft, who confirmed that, provided that the building meets its design specification to last between 125 and 200 years, the public purse will truly get value for money from what will be an architecturally special building.

Deputy Speakers (Westminster Hall)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What representations she has received concerning the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons for the appointment of Deputy Speakers for sittings in Westminster Hall. [91384]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): A few representations on this

subject have been received and a motion will be put before the House after the recess covering this and other arrangements for sittings in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Government restore to Parliament as a whole and to Back Benchers in particular the right to choose their own officers? Does my hon. Friend consider that it is now inappropriate for Deputy Speakers to be appointed through the usual channels and that the Government and the Opposition Front Bench should have no hand in it whatsoever? Should not this be the subject of a free vote by Back Benchers because it is our property? Secondly, and not unimportantly, Deputy Speakers tend to be a curia from which Speakers are chosen. It is appropriate that this House and Back Benchers choose our Deputy Speakers in future. What does he say?

Mr. Tipping: I say what I said a moment ago: a motion will be brought before the House after the summer recess and before the next Session. Of course, Members will have an opportunity to vote on it. Let me remind my hon. Friend that the Modernisation Committee report recommended that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel should acquire those posts.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:

Stephen Rothwell O'Brien Esq., for Eddisbury

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you advise me how an important issue can be raised before the House recesses on Tuesday? As someone who fully supported—indeed, urged—the military intervention in Kosovo, I am concerned, as other hon. Members are, about the slaughter of 14 civilian Serbs on Saturday, including a boy of 15. If the House were not going into recess, there would be various ways to raise the matter, including Prime Minister's Question Time. If we cannot raise it before we rise, it will be nearly three months before it can be raised on the Floor of the House.
In those circumstances, and remembering that we went into Kosovo to protect all civilians against murder and ethnic cleansing—the murder of the 14 Serbs is undoubtedly ethnic cleansing—I ask only that you reflect on how we can raise the matter today or tomorrow because much lies in your hands, for reasons that I cannot touch on.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose—

Madam Speaker: Let me reply please.

Mrs. Mahon: It is on the same point.

Madam Speaker: Let me hear it then.

Mrs. Mahon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that a precedent was set for making a statement by the Foreign Secretary when Albanians were massacred by Serb paramilitaries. It is clear from the case of the 14 Serbs that many Serbs, Roma and other ethnic minorities in Kosovo are being subjected to a reign of terror. They are hiding out and, in some cases, being protected by KFOR. Given that situation, will the Foreign Secretary come to the House to make a statement, as has been done previously? If we are to appear even-handed, and equally as concerned about whoever is massacred, that seems to be the only fair way to proceed.

Ann Clwyd: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?

Ann Clwyd: It is on Kosovo, but not related to the point of order made by my hon. Friends.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps I should reply to the point of order raised by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). I do, of course, understand their concern, especially the point about even-handedness—that is exactly what we want to see. The Government Whip on the Treasury Bench will have heard both the comments that were made. I suggest to the hon. Members that they might also make representations to the Leader of the House to see whether, in the time available—I am aware that there is little time—there can be a statement from the Foreign Office, if that is wanted.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a

request from the Prime Minister to make a statement today on the publication of the Government's annual report, or are we to deduce from the absence of such a request that the Prime Minister, although publishing the report and presenting it to Parliament, is not willing to subject it to the scrutiny and questioning of the House? Further to that point, is it in order for a Command Paper to be published and commercially available in a supermarket 24 hours before it is available to Members of this House through the Vote Office?

Madam Speaker: If my memory serves me correctly, I thought that a Labour party manifesto commitment was to publish an annual report and to do so in that way. I am aware of the sale of such a publication. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am one of his constituents; although I went to a supermarket yesterday, I was far more interested in food than in publications, and I should not have looked for it. I am not certain whether the correct way to proceed is that it should be on sale to the public before being made available to Members of the House. However, I understand that that annual report is a publication that is not open to questioning from the House at this stage.

Ann Clwyd: Further to a previous point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this. If we are to have a statement on Kosovo, I hope that it will include some information on reconstruction. After any conflict, it is well known that it is important to reconstruct a country as quickly as possible so that people can return to a normal way of life. Reports from Kosovo are especially worrying because they suggest that, although people involved in the conflict were talking about reconstruction and redevelopment after the end of the conflict, some countries now appear to be dragging their feet over giving the necessary assistance for that reconstruction to take place as quickly as possible.
When we return to the House, we shall be in the winter months. It is important that people in Kosovo can rebuild their homes and communities as quickly as possible. We must ensure that those countries which may be dragging their feet face their responsibilities to assist those communities to do that rebuilding.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady will have heard what I said previously about a possible statement from the Foreign Office. I shall not reiterate what I said, but I am sure that the Government Whip will have taken note of her comments; perhaps she would make her representations known in that direction.

Ms Ann Coffey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the past two weeks, 28,000 letters have been delivered to Members of the House in the name of our constituents, but those letters were unsigned. They are part of what I understand is called the "Keep our Gold" campaign, in response to advertisements in the national newspapers. A mailing company paid almost £7,000 for the letters to be distributed in the internal mail via the Post Office. I cannot find out the name of the company behind those letters. I should like to know its name because we could all save ourselves a great deal of time and trouble by replying to it directly. I am at a loss as to why the company wants to keep its name secret. As you can


imagine, Madam Speaker, I suspect the worst. Could you help me by inquiring further into the matter—especially as to whether you feel that it is an abuse of the internal system?

Madam Speaker: Yes indeed;, I will ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the matter. I do not know the company responsible—

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: rose—

Madam Speaker: However, it could be that Mrs. Dunwoody does.

Mrs. Dunwoody: You flatter me, Madam Speaker; I have no idea which company is responsible. However, further to that point of order, may I point out that I sent a letter to every one of my constituents named in those unsigned letters? Today, I have received a series of phone calls from people saying that they have no idea what it is about. I asked for written confirmation before approaching anyone on their behalf. It is revealing that many of those people had their names and addresses used without their knowledge.

Madam Speaker: I am delighted to have that information. I shall certainly ask the Serjeant at Arms and the authorities here to investigate the matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. While the Foreign Office is in a listening mood, will it also take into account the vast problems of toxic difficulties in Serbia, such as the pouring into the Danube of ethylene dichloride—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is not the Foreign Office that must take those matters into account: the hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order with me. The point has already been made and the House understands the views held by several hon. Members.

Business of the House

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall have been received.
I shall speak only briefly as the House has a great deal of important business before it this afternoon. This procedural motion is designed to aid the smooth progress of business. If approved, it allows you, Madam Speaker, not to adjourn the House this evening until any messages from the Lords have been received.
The order was first laid last Friday, at which time hon. Members objected to it and a large number of other measures. I make no complaint about that: those involved would simply say that they were exercising their rights. However, as we all know, rights entail responsibilities, and there is a responsibility on the Government to pursue and protect their own legislation.
I think that there is also a responsibility to try to achieve the timetable laid out in last Thursday's business statement. It was made clear then that the House would be asked to consider any Lords' messages received prior to the recess. Moreover, any legitimate concerns could have been raised during the three and a half hours that the House spent debating business issues that day. None were raised. It is perfectly reasonable to expect the House to consider messages from the Lords in the final two days before the recess. That is a long-standing practice, and precedents have been set.
I hope that we will now quickly move on to discuss the real issues affecting our constituents. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred to the "hooligan" element in the House last week, and it may be that this is just another example of such an outbreak. However, if there are any real concerns, I anticipate that they will be addressed quickly.

Mr. Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is all too rare that we have a chance to deliberate, in a calm and reflective manner, on motions that are all too often rejected or described as "merely procedural". I object to the term "merely procedural" because much of what we do in this place depends on an understanding of our procedures and on a fair and proper interpretation of them.
I am equally grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for pointing out that, on Friday, a certain number of matters, including this important procedural motion, were objected to. As always, I was here on Friday, and I counted 39 private Members' Bills to which the Government objected. I shall not detail them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on.''] Since my hon. Friends want me to do so, those Bills included the Cancer Care Bill, the Fuel Safety Bill, the Poverty and Social Exclusion (National Strategy) Bill, and the Concessionary Television Licences for Pensioners Bill—all killed by the Government on Friday, along with many others.
After those 39 private Members' Bills had been killed by the Government on Friday, as the Parliamentary Secretary acknowledged, I took the opportunity to object to this measure, and I shall explain why. I was interested to know


why the Government should consider it necessary to move such a motion on a Friday afternoon. I have no objection to that. As you know, Madam Speaker, I am habitually in the Chamber on a Friday, for which hon. Members are grateful, and I appreciate that. However, I was puzzled by the fact that on a Friday afternoon, at the very end of business, after they had killed the 39 private Members' Bills, the Government seemed to want to slip this motion through quietly.
The motion contains some potentially disturbing elements. As we heard in the remarks introducing the debate which may gather momentum as we get into it—right hon. and hon. Members will see its importance as I skip my way through the salient points—the motion states with seductive simplicity that you, Madam Speaker,
shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall have been received.
That strikes me as a procedural blank cheque.
If one glances down the Order Paper, one sees that the Government are anxious to limit debate on other important matters. The Employment Relations Bill is allocated up to three hours. A very important matter, motion No. 8—the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, no less—is allocated only one hour. The debate of such important matters as the appointment of my hon. Friend is restricted, yet the present motion contains the rather sinister element that the House shall not adjourn
until any Message from the Lords shall have been received.
In other words, the Government apparently expect us to sit here and twiddle our thumbs, on the off-chance that a message may be received from another place. I am not sure whether that is a reasonable request at this stage of our proceedings—that is for the House to judge. However, it requires just a little thought to decide whether it is reasonable for us to prolong today's sitting, when there is a further sitting of the House tomorrow.
Although there is to be an important debate tomorrow on public expenditure—I fully accept that—I should have thought that our procedures contained sufficient leeway and flexibility for the Government to have stated that should the messages from the Lords not be received during today's sitting, it would be reasonable for us to deal with them tomorrow.
Is it not dangerous to expect us to receive a message from another place and deal with it instantly, without any possibility of consideration, when instead we could receive the message during today's sitting, ponder it overnight, deliberate and consult, and return in a proper and deliberative way to deal with the matter during tomorrow's sitting? Although the debate tomorrow is important, it is difficult to imagine that there would be no scope in tomorrow's business to allow the matter to be considered in a more deliberative manner.

Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that the truncated consideration of the Employment Relations Bill, in particular its peculiar treatment relative to the earlier motion, will be greeted with some alarm in my constituency, not least by Mr. James Naylor, a prominent business man and member of the London regional council of the Confederation of British Industry, who told me only last week of his grave concerns about the present contents of the Bill, and of the importance of every opportunity for

it to be revised? Will not Mr. Naylor regard it as extraordinary that the Government intend to handle business in such a bizarre fashion?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who typically goes to the heart of the matter incisively and analytically. People outside will be rather puzzled when they see that a measure as important as the Employment Relations Bill is being cut off in its prime, and we are being denied proper debate. The Bill affects many businesses—the employers and the employed—yet we are apparently expected to take a leisurely and open-ended approach to whatever messages might be received from another place.
I do not know what those messages may or may not contain. I wonder whether the Government know. I suppose that they must have some idea, but they are not telling us at present. The Minister did not give us that information in his introductory remarks. He was Delphic—if I may put it that way—and opaque on the subject. We are expected to accept, as a matter of trust, that the Government must get through their business, which is apparent from the jack-booted approach that the Government take to most things these days, not least the rest of the business on the Order Paper.
The Minister had the gall to ask, as a matter of convenience to the Government, for a blank cheque in order to ensure that when messages come from another place they can be dealt with in a peremptory fashion, without the time—that is the implication—to consider them properly. I do not know whether it is within your purview, Madam Speaker, to contemplate suspending the sitting of the House when those messages arrive so that we may give them some thought. That might be one possibility if the Government continue to insist that the messages be dealt with today.
The Government might concede that point at the conclusion of this debate, which I am happy to see may continue until any hour. We can deliberate this matter at length—I am grateful for that—but the other matters of legislative importance later on the Order Paper are time limited. We therefore have the bizarre situation whereby we can, happily, debate this procedural matter about the timing of business in the House—which I regard as important—at any length, but we cannot debate substantive legislative matters at any length.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: My right hon. Friend heard the earlier reference to the "hooligans". Does he not agree that he has amply demonstrated that, far from residing on the Opposition Back Benches, those hooligans are on the Government Front Bench? That is evident from the way in which the Government are treating the House and its procedures.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. The callous and cavalier slaughter of 39 private Members' Bills in the House last Friday could also be described as a hooligan act—and I am happy to do so.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that one private Member's Bill enjoyed the Minister's support—

Madam Speaker: Order. We will leave last Friday's private Members' Bills to last Friday. Let us deal with the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Madam Speaker. I have tried to illustrate that this apparently simple procedural motion raises many questions. However, my main question is: why do the Government think it is so important to deal with this matter today when the House will sit again tomorrow, when we will hardly be pressed in terms of the business on the Order Paper? I am sure that there will be scope to return to this matter then. If this motion had been worded differently and had said that any messages received from another place today could be dealt with properly tomorrow, which would give hon. Members the chance to consider them, it would have been extremely acceptable.
I find it difficult to accept—I am reluctant to do so unless the Minister provides a further explanation—the fact that the Government have issued an instruction. They have said, "Trust us; we know what we are doing and we must get our business through"—the Government Whip is helpfully nodding, which confirms what is in the Government's mind. That attitude is not extraordinary but absolutely typical of the Government; it is the kind of attitude that we have come to expect from them.
Before I consent to this measure, I want the Government to answer one point. This motion is not only debatable but—as I think you will confirm, Madam Speaker—a matter upon which the House could vote if it so desired. Before we contemplate whether we will divide the House, I hope that the Minister will have the courtesy to tell us his thoughts on why it is so important to ram through this business today, in the way that the motion outlines, rather than allowing the House to return to it tomorrow when we will not have the same time constraints. We could then deal with it on that basis. That is my simple, modest request.
I am grateful for the Minister's courtesy in coming to the House to explain the motion, which these days is quite unusual, but I should like further explanation of why he wants to deal with that business today, rather than tomorrow. I shall then want to consider whether the matter is one that should divide the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 12.

Division No. 272]
[3.55 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Paul


Alexander, Douglas
Borrow, David


Allan, Richard
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brake, Tom


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brand, Dr Peter


Ashton, Joe
Breed, Colin


Austin, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Banks, Tony
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Barnes, Harry
Browne, Desmond


Barron, Kevin
Buck, Ms Karen


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Berry, Roger
Caplin, Ivor


Betts, Clive
Casale, Roger


Blackman, Liz
Caton, Martin





Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Harvey, Nick


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chidgey, David
Healey, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David



Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dalyell, Tam
Jamieson, David


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jenkins, Brian


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Denham, John



Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dobbin, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Donohoe, Brian H
Keeble, Ms Sally


Doran, Frank
Keetch, Paul


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Etherington, Bill
Kirkwood, Archy


Fearn, Ronnie
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Reid, Rt Hon Frank
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Flynn, Paul



Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Galloway, George
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAllion, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Golding, Mrs Llin



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Macdonald Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Grogan, John
McFall, John



Gunnell, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hain, Peter
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
McNamara, Kevin






McNulty, Tony
Powell, Sir Raymond


Mactaggart, Fiona
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


McWalter, Tony
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McWilliam, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Purchase, Ken


Mallaber, Judy
Quinn, Lawrie


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Rammell, Bill


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Rapson, Syd


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Raynsford, Nick


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Martlew, Eric
Rendel, David


Maxton, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Meale, Alan
Rooker, Jeff


Merron, Gillian
Rooney, Terry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Rowlands, Ted


Miller, Andrew
Roy, Frank


Mitchell, Austin
Ruddock, Joan


Moffatt, Laura
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Morley, Elliot
Salter, Martin


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sanders, Adrian


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mullin, Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Sawford, Phil


Oaten, Mark
Sedgemore, Brian


O'Brien, Bill (Normtanton)
Sheerman, Barry


O'Hara, Eddie
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Olner, Bill
Singh, Marsha


Organ, Mrs Diana
Skinner, Dennis


Palmer, Dr Nick
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Perham, Ms Linda
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Pickthall, Colin
Soley, Clive


Plaskitt James
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pollard, Kerry
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pond, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pound, Stephen
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)





Stoate, Dr Howard
Ward, Ms Claire


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wareing, Robert N


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Watts, David


Stringer, Graham
Webb, Steve


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brian


Stunell, Andrew
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)



Wills, Michael


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark
Wray, James


Touhig, Don
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wyatt, Derek


Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. David Hanson and


Vis, Dr Rudi
Mr. David Clelland.




NOES


Beggs, Roy
Shepherd, Richard


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Swayne, Desmond


Forsythe, Clifford
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wardle, Charles


Hunter, Andrew



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. Eric Forth and


St Aubyn, Nick
Mr. Graham Brady.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords shall have been received.

Orders of the Day — Employment Relations Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

Lords amendment No. 21 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 22, after clause 27, to insert the following new clause—Employment rights: employment outside Great Britain—
.—(1) In section 285(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (employment outside Great Britain) for "Chapter II (procedure for handling redundancies)" there shall be substituted "sections 193 and 194 (duty to notify Secretary of State of certain redundancies)".
(2) After section 287(3) of that Act (offshore employment) there shall be inserted—
(3A) An Order in Council under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
(3) Section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (employment outside Great Britain) shall cease to have effect; and in section 5(1) for "sections 196 and" there shall be substituted "section".
(4) After section 199(6) of that Act (mariners) there shall be inserted—
(7) The provisions mentioned in subsection (8) apply to employment on board a ship registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 if and only if—

(a) the ship's entry in the register specifies a port in Great Britain as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging,
(b) under his contract of employment the person employed does not work wholly outside Great Britain, and
(c) the person employed is ordinarily resident in Great Britain.

(8) The provisions are—

(a) sections 8 to 10,
(b) Parts II, III and V,
(c) Part VI, apart from sections 58 to 60,
(d) Parts VII and VIII,
(e) sections 92 and 93, and
(f) Part X."."

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 306, 325 and 329.

Mr. McCartney: Section 196 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally limits the operation of the Act to employees who ordinarily work in Great Britain. It is a complicated section resulting from several consolidations, some relating to legislation at least a quarter of a century old.
After careful consideration, we concluded that the complexities are unnecessary. International law and the principles of our domestic law are enough to ensure

that our legislation does not apply in inappropriate circumstances. There must be some proper connection with the UK first, and in such cases it is right that UK law should apply. Other legislation has no need for such restrictions. We believe that now is the time to simplify the provisions, in line with our commitment to good regulation.
Repealing that section has a number of other significant advantages. It ensures that we fulfil our European Union obligations, which, in some circumstances, mean that rights that are derived from Europe should apply to individuals who may not currently be covered. It extends employment rights to employees temporarily working in Great Britain and thus facilitates the implementation of the posting of workers directive, which otherwise would require further regulations later this year. It also means that people who may have worked for some years in the UK, but who are nevertheless excluded from claiming under the Employment Rights Act 1996, will be able to rely on the protection of our legislation, as should be the case. The recent case of Carver v. Saudi Arabian Airlines demonstrates the need for this provision.
I do not claim that the amendment will have dramatic effects in practice—few cases arise, and the additional costs to employers will be minimal. Nevertheless, it takes forward an important principle, and modernises and simplifies our legislation. The position of mariners is special, and special provisions apply to them at present under sections 196 and 199. The amendment ensures that their position is unchanged.
The implications of doing otherwise can be fully examined in the longer term. The new powers in the Bill to confer rights—clause 20, which would become section 23 of the Act—will provide us with the opportunity to consult on whether changes to the provisions applying to mariners would be desirable.
The first subsection in the new clause makes a parallel change to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, removing the territorial restriction in that Act on rights to be consulted about mass redundancies. Subsection (2) is a purely technical change to powers in the 1992 Act to extend rights to offshore installations. Currently no procedure is specified for making the order. The amendments will provide for negative resolution, in line with the procedure that applies under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Amendments 306, 325 and 329 are consequential to the repeal of section 196.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 23 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 24, after clause 32, to insert the following new clause—Transfer of undertakings—
.—(1) This section applies where regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (general implementation of Treaties) make provision for the purpose of implementing, or for a purpose concerning, a Community obligation of the United Kingdom which relates to the treatment of employees on the transfer of an undertaking or business or part of an undertaking or business.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make the same or similar provision in relation to the treatment of employees in circumstances other than those to which the Community obligation applies (including circumstances in which there is no transfer, or no transfer to which the Community obligation applies).


(3) Regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
We indicated in our "Fairness at Work" White Paper our intention to revise the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981—commonly known as the TUPE regulations—to improve their operation. These regulations implement the European Communities acquired rights directive, and safeguard employees' rights when the business in which they work changes hands between employers.
Since the White Paper was published, we have agreed with our European partners a new, improved directive: that was a notable success for the UK presidency last year. The new directive sets out for the first time an explicit definition of the transfer of an undertaking. It also gives member states clear options to allow, but not require, independent workers' representatives to negotiate changes to terms and conditions to save jobs when the undertaking of an insolvent employer is transferred, just as they can in cases of insolvency when no transfer is involved; to provide that the transferor's outstanding debts in relation to the employees do not pass to the transferee, so as to save jobs when the undertaking of an insolvent employer is transferred; to ensure that the transferor notifies the transferee of all the rights and obligations that will be transferred in a relevant transfer so far as they are or should be known to the transferor; and to include all occupational pension rights within the terms and conditions that pass from the transferor to the transferee in a relevant transfer.
The amendment of the directive has laid the groundwork for our revision of the regulations. Officials in my Department are currently drawing up detailed proposals, in liaison with colleagues elsewhere in Whitehall and in informal discussions with the main employer and employee representative bodies and other outside interests, in line with social partnership principles. I am grateful for the constructive contribution that the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and others have made to this process.
There is a high degree of consensus on the main issues to be addressed in the revision of the regulations. That is particularly so in the area of public sector contracting, where we have been assisted by the TUPE forum, which is a representative body with members from the CBI, the TUC, Unison, the Construction Confederation, the Business Services Association, the Local Government Management Board, the Association of Direct Labour Organisations and others.
Our aim is to seek views on our detailed proposals by way of a formal public consultation document to be published a little later in the year, and to have the new requirements in place by next spring.
As this work has progressed, however, it has become clear that some of the changes that we may decide to make could not be achieved under the existing powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. In particular, extending the scope so as to give rights to individuals when they would not have them under the directive could not be done under those existing powers. That limits the options available for tackling two major areas of uncertainty in the regulations: their application to contracting-out operations and their application to transfers involving public sector bodies.
If we had to rely on the existing powers alone, we could be prevented from putting forward proposals to meet the widespread expectation—shared by employer and employee bodies alike—that the new regulations will apply comprehensively to changes that occur in service contracting. Specifically, it could prevent us from ensuring that recontracting or bringing back in-house of a contracted-out service was covered in cases where the conditions in the directive were not met, but where it was wished to provide consistent treatment.
The existing powers would also be insufficient to allow us to apply the regulations to transfers of purely administrative functions between public administrative bodies, should we wish to do so.
Amendment No. 24 seeks to remove those technical obstacles, so that we can be certain that we have sufficient powers to achieve what we are likely to be asked to achieve when we go out to formal public consultation.
4.15 pm 
I should stress that we are not yet ready to present our detailed proposals for revision of the regulations. Some difficult legal issues must be addressed, and my officials are still considering them. Besides, we are obviously not in a position to prejudge the outcome of the public consultation to which I have referred.

Mr. Tim Collins: May I express my hope, and that of many other Conservative Members, that the Minister receives the promotion that is due to him?
The Minister said earlier that consultation would take place in the autumn, and that proposals would be in place some time next spring. I appreciate that he may not be able to be precise, but can he give us some idea of the minimum period that will elapse between the conclusion of the consultation and the implementation of the regulations?

Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. I do not know whether they were helpful or unhelpful, but they were certainly apposite, given that we are dealing with the transfer of undertakings from one job to another—although I am not sure that that covers Ministers.
The hon. Gentleman's main point is very valid. When my officials have completed their work, I shall be happy to give both the official Opposition and the Liberals a clear indication of the timetable for the proposals. That will involve consultation. This is the first opportunity that the Government have had, prior to consultation about specific regulations, to sit down with stakeholders and involve them in the preparation of a consultation document. When the timetable is produced, it will be as a result of agreement. The hon. Gentleman, however, asked a fair and reasonable question, and I shall answer it as soon as I can. If that is before the House returns from the recess, I shall write to him and to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
The use to which the power will be put will, as I have said, be subject to consultation. That is why the amendment was drafted in relatively wide terms. I hope,


however, that by describing in some detail the purposes for which we expect the power to be used, I have been able to allay any fears that hon. Members may have had. I trust that I have succeeded in making clear what are undoubtedly complex legal points.

Mr. David Chidgey: It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify one point. He referred to the transfer of undertakings from the public to the private sector. May I take him back a few years, to a time when privatisation policies were in full swing and many public-sector agencies became private, contracted-out organisations?
In recent years, contracts have been re-tendered so that other private sector companies can bid for the privilege of undertaking the services. The Public Services Agency is an example. One problem that has arisen is exactly how the TUPE rights of workers are transferred to the second privatised employer who has contracted for those services. It has caused some confusion, and, as I think the Minister will know, what should happen is not made clear in the directive. Has the Minister taken this on board in the regulations, and, if not, can he assure me that he will?

Mr. McCartney: That is a fair and, indeed, important point. The whole purpose of agreeing the review with our European partners was to take account of exactly such issues.
Over the years, a complexity has arisen because of decisions made in courts and in employment appeal tribunals. There are grey areas applying to both employers and employees, which should not need to be there. A common approach is needed on the part of employers' and employees' organisations to put the matter right, which is why prior consultation is taking place. I trust that the consultation will address those issues fully and effectively, so that when the new proposals are introduced next spring there will be a sense of common ownership, and both rights and obligations in regard to what happens in the case of first, second and, potentially, third-generation contractual arrangements will be clarified.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 31 agreed to.

Schedule 1

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 17, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert—
("2A.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule.
(2) The meaning of collective bargaining given by section 178(1) shall not apply.
(3) References to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays; but this has effect subject to sub-paragraph (4).
(4) If the parties agree matters as the subject of collective bargaining, references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to the agreed matters; and this is the case whether the agreement is made before or after the time when the CAC issues a declaration, or the parties agree, that the union is (or unions are) entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.

(5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not apply in construing paragraph 27(3).
(6) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) do not apply in construing paragraph 30 or 36B.")

Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 74, 109, 110 and 198.

Mr. McCartney: Every time I say, "I beg to move," someone shouts.
The purpose of amendment No. 32 is to clarify the scope of collective bargaining and how it may be altered. We wanted it to be absolutely clear that, even if the Central Arbitration Committee issues a declaration of recognition, the union and employer could agree to alter the scope of collective bargaining to include other matters than pay, hours and holidays.
Similarly, amendment No. 198 clarifies the scope of collective bargaining in part III of the schedule by introducing a paragraph 70B. New paragraph 70C allows the parties to vary a bargaining method imposed by the CAC under part III. That mirrors the existing provision in paragraph 27 for bargaining methods imposed under part I.
I turn to the issue of whether a union should be required to give up an existing collective bargaining agreement to apply for recognition under part I. The CAC is required to reject applications for recognition in a bargaining unit if any union, including the applicant union, is already recognised to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of one, or more workers in the bargaining unit. One effect of that is to require a union that has a very limited, but possibly long-standing recognition agreement covering the union's role in disciplinary matters, for example, to give up that recognition to apply for statutory recognition under part I.
We do not believe that recognition for what might be called "non-core" issues should bar the union from seeking recognition through the procedure for pay, hours and holidays, if both the employer and union are happy for recognition to continue. The union should be able to seek recognition on the "core" issues of pay, hours and holidays without being forced first to tear up an existing agreement.
Therefore, amendment No. 73 provides that a voluntary agreement that does not include bargaining about pay, hours or holidays does not bar the recognised union from applying under part I. The employer will, of course, still be able to terminate the voluntary agreement if he or she wishes. It may be that an employer, faced with an application for recognition on pay and so on, wishes to renegotiate on the matters for which he already recognises the union. The Government's amendment allows that.
Amendment No. 72 is a technical change to the wording. Amendment No. 74 ensures that changes to a bargaining unit made by the CAC under part III are taken into account in deciding whether another unit is recognised.
Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 ensure that the definition of collective bargaining in relation to changing the bargaining unit is the definition already in force—what the parties have agreed, or the CAC has imposed. Amendment No. 198 is equivalent to paragraphs 2(7) and 27, and applies to a new unit that is determined under part III. It allows both the definition of collective bargaining and the method for collective bargaining to be varied, or ended if the parties agree to do so.
Those are constructive changes. I commend them to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 18, line 12, leave out from ("registered") to end of line 14 and insert
("in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 shall be treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

(a) the ship's entry in the register specifies a port outside Great Britain as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging,")

Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34, 38, 41, 45, 48, 57, 62, 65, 67 to 69, 75, 78, 85, 88, 90, 100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 111, 113, 114, 128, 133, 136, 139, 145, 147 to 149, 188, 205, 208 to 210, 213, 215, 216, 219, 224, 225, 231, 234, 235, 241, 244 to 246, 251 to 253, 256, 257, 259, 261, 267, 268, 274 to 277 and 279.

Mr. McCartney: The amendments fall into several small groups, which effect minor improvements to the schedule.
Amendments Nos. 33, 100 and 209 are identical corrections to the wording of the schedule to reflect the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. The meaning of the schedule is unchanged in each case.
Amendments Nos. 34, 101 and 210 alter the power to change the 21-workers threshold for recognition. They allow the Secretary of State to make transitional arrangements and, more important, to apply the change in all three parts of the schedule in which it appears. Without the amendments, only paragraph 6 could be altered.
Amendments Nos. 113, 145 and 147 slightly increase the standard of proof required for a successful application under part III to change the bargaining unit from "prima facie evidence" to being "likely" that the original unit was not appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 removes references to a worker's breach of contract from the provisions on detriment and dismissal connected with recognition in part VIII of the Bill. The amendments are not intended to allow workers to breach their contracts in pursuit of union recognition, but are aimed at preventing employers from circumventing the protections for workers from detriment or dismissal arising from campaigning on recognition.
The amendments solve another potential problem. In providing that actions in breach of contract are not protected, the schedule is currently different from other detriment and dismissal provisions—in section 44 of the

Employment Rights Act 1996, for example—because those provisions do not contain any mention of breach of contract. Retaining the Bill's existing text might be taken to imply that a worker is always protected under other similar provisions when he acts in breach of contract. Again, that is obviously not desirable.
Amendments Nos. 274 and 275 would continue to protect a worker from detriment or dismissal provided that the worker's action is not unreasonable. In most cases, it will be unreasonable for a worker to break his or her contract, but not, of course, when the employer has written in clauses making the actions protected by the provisions—such as campaigning for or against recognition—a breach of contract. It would not be sensible to allow such clauses to be written in.
I therefore do not believe that the change represents a substantial alteration of the provisions. The change does, however, reduce the risk of their circumvention by unscrupulous employers, and of unintended consequences on other legislation. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree that the change is desirable.
I should now like to speak to even more technical amendments. Amendment No. 75 allows for the possibility of more than one union being recognised jointly for a bargaining unit. Amendments Nos. 78, 276 and 277 insert missed or consequential cross-references, whereas amendment No. 88 is for clarity; amendments Nos. 108 and 149 are grammatical; and amendment No. 111 ensures consistent terminology. For additional clarity, amendments Nos. 128, 215, 216, 234, 235, 252, 256, 257 and 259 remove superfluous words. Amendment No. 208 corrects a cross-reference; and amendment No. 225 corrects another.
Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, amendment No. 279 requires the CAC to give notice of its declarations to the parties.

Mr. Collins: As the Minister said, this group of amendments is largely a technical one. I shall therefore confine myself to asking the Minister two questions.
First, the Minister mentioned the Government's proposal to "increase slightly" the required standard of proof in provisions on bargaining units. Will he explain to hon. Members who are not lawyers the reason behind the Government's decision to increase slightly the standard of proof?
Secondly, the Minister mentioned amendments dealing with the possibility of recognition of more than one trade union in a bargaining unit. Will he tell the House the Government's general attitude to the general desirability, or otherwise, of more than one trade union being recognised within a bargaining unit? He will know that it is often thought that one of the keys to Germany's success since the second world war has been a strong governmental imperative favouring single union recognition in specific industrial blocs. I should be very interested to know the Government's view on whether such a change is felt to be desirable, or whether it should be a matter purely for the bargaining partners themselves.

Mr. McCartney: In such matters, the burden of proof falls not only on employers, but employees. If there is a request for a change in bargaining units, it is only


reasonable and fair that whoever makes the request should present to the CAC—which will have to decide—no more or less than substantial evidence. The provisions would simply send a signal that, if either or both parties wishes to change the arrangements and to legitimise that change, they should present no more or less than professional, reliable evidence to the CAC.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) also raised the issue of recognition of more than one union in a bargaining unit. As he will have noticed, various provisions in the Bill and schedule 1 address that issue.
4.30 pm 
Where there are long-standing arrangements involving more than one union—and where an employer is happy with that—we do not want to disturb them. However, where there is the potential for disagreement, we will have in law a means by which people can come forward for recognition. The proposal provides a right, changes the culture and makes clear to the unions and others concerned that the CAC will not deal with issues where a dispute arises between unions over recognition. It is for them to resolve those disputes. Until they do, they will not be able to secure an agreement.
Where there is an agreement—and where it is fair and reasonable for more than one union to make a proposal—we will allow the process to continue. On green-field sites, for example, it would seem reasonable that, where an application for the bargaining unit comes in—and there has been no history of any arrangement—the CAC should request the employer to make known whether he agrees or otherwise with the proposed bargaining units. Where there is not an agreement, the CAC will seek advice and evidence before it makes a determination about the bargaining unit, including whether it should relate to single table bargaining or not.
All of the circumstances that we can think of are covered by the proposals. The point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was well made. The Government have been at pains to try to ensure that the proposals are about facilitating good employment relations and preventing disputes from arising. Where disputes arise, we will have a mechanism to deal with them. We want to try to ensure that good, modern employment relations do not lead to a situation where disputes arise. Where disputes do arise between unions, they will not be able to use the procedure.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 34 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 18, line 40, leave out ("in the second period")

Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 to 44, 46, 47, 49 to 52, 64, 66, 70, 71, 76, 77, 80 to 84, 86, 87, 91 to 99, 102 to 104, 106, 112, 120, 155, 173, 175,

184, 187, 192, 199 and 200, 201 and amendment (a) thereto, 202, 203, 204 and amendment (a) in lieu, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218, 220, to 223, 226, to 230, 232, 233, 236 to 240, 242,243, 249, 250, 254, 255, 258, 260, 262, to 266, 269 to 273, and 278.

Mr. McCartney: The Government's amendments deal with the procedures for derecognition. Amendments. Nos. 201 to 204, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218 and 220 to 223 deal with applications for derecognition by an employer on the grounds of having fewer than 21 workers. Most of them are simple clarifications of the procedure. Amendment No. 201, for example, clarifies the way in which an employer must apply, in keeping with changes to part III.
Amendment No. 203 clarifies the time in which the application must be made. If an employer believes that he or she has fewer than 21 workers over a 13-week period, an application for derecognition must be made within five working days of the 13 weeks ending. Amendment No. 211 requires the CAC to decide whether an application from an employer is valid before the union is allowed to challenge it. Obviously, if the application is invalid, there is no need to involve the union. Most of the other amendments are equally technical.
Amendment No. 217 is a substantive change, which requires the CAC to reject an application for derecognition if it is made within three years of another application for derecognition of the bargaining unit which the CAC rejected. This reflects the statement in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper that
the CAC will not entertain an application for derecognition within three years of … an unsuccessful request for derecognition".
This is a logical complement to the three-year bar on applications for recognition after an unsuccessful application, and will promote stability in industrial relations.
Turning to an employer's request for derecognition, amendments Nos. 226 to 230, 232, 233 and 236 to 240 are simplifications and modest improvements to the procedure.
Amendments Nos. 228, 229, 232 and 233 are equivalent to amendments Nos. 35 to 37, 39 and 40, to which I have already spoken. Together, they consolidate the two negotiation periods in paragraphs 80 and 81. At present, the union has a first period of 10 working days to respond to a request for derecognition, and if it agrees to negotiate there is a second period of 20 working days for negotiation.
Amendment No. 233 ensures, for consistency with part I, that failure to respond to an application within 10 working days is treated as rejection of the application. Amendments Nos. 237, 239 and 240 require the response and negotiation process to have taken place.
Amendment No. 236 bars repeat applications for derecognition for three years, as I described on amendment No. 217, and amendment No. 238 is consequential. Amendment No. 242 does the same for applications by workers for derecognition, and amendment No. 243 is a consequential change.
As a result of the changes to the ballot procedures, the CAC is required to hold a derecognition ballot rather than being able to choose to do so, and amendments Nos. 249 and 250 are technical changes to reflect that. The changes are largely technical, and all are improvements. I commend them to the House.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I want to speak to amendment (a) to amendment No. 201 and amendment (a) to amendment No. 204. They represent a last-ditch attempt to write something helpful to small businesses into the Bill.
Many small and medium-sized firms will not be spared from the Government's determination to force businesses to recognise trade unions for bargaining purposes, and the new law will apply to those with as few as 20 employees. It is difficult to see how a business with so few staff needs union representation and collective bargaining arrangements. Most small firms simply do not have the capacity to administer such arrangements, and Labour's failure to recognise that illustrates its near total lack of understanding of how businesses work.
The amendments would raise the threshold for a small business from 21 to 50.

Mr. Chidgey: What is the Conservative party's view on the rights or otherwise of individual employees to join or not to join a trade union?

Mrs. Browning: I made it clear last Wednesday that we believe that, notwithstanding the right of union recognition in the workplace, if that is the wish of the work force, individuals should be free to contract individually with the employer. That is the right flexibility.
The Government opposed the increase from 21 to 50 in the Lords, but so did the Liberal Democrats, who constantly say that they are the champions of small business. They, too, wanted to limit the definition of a small firm to one with only 21 employees. Representations have been received from almost every business organisation: the CBI, British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors all support increasing the threshold for exemption. The Government have ignored those calls, and the result will be a tough time for small business.
My noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon made a compelling case in the other place and drew to the Government's attention the fact that there is a precedent for the figure of 50. It is the defining number for a small firm in the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998—which was introduced by the Government—and is compatible with European legislation.
Labour Members may be surprised that I should pray in aid European legislation, but the Government must be consistent. It is not acceptable for them to say that we have to harmonise with Europe and do everything that it tells us on employment legislation while refusing to acknowledge that 50 is the definition used in many parts of European employment legislation. For some reason, the Government want to draw into the scope of the Bill all companies with 21 or more employees.
I am pleased that the Minister is in his place this afternoon, as he was unable to be with us for last Thursday's proceedings. I wish that he had been, as he

would then have witnessed the chaos of the debate. There was good will among Conservative Members to make progress—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady cannot go into the history of matters. She must concentrate on what is before the House.

Mrs. Browning: I stand chided, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I look forward to the Government accepting the amendments, given that I understand that they have had a change of heart and accepted an amendment to clause 15 that they voted against last Thursday. This may be the Minister's final opportunity to represent the Department of Trade and Industry at the Dispatch Box, as it is possible that he will move on to greater things tomorrow. We all wish him well, but acceptance of the amendment would be a mark of his recognition of the importance of the small business sector in this country.

Mr. Chidgey: I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 93, which deals with the adjudication by the Central Arbitration Committee of a claim for recognition. I refer him to proposed new paragraph 36C(b), which states that an application would be invalid unless the CAC decided that
a majority of the workers constituting the relevant bargaining unit would be likely to favour recognition of the union.
The Minister will recall that in our Committee proceedings, we debated at some length the process by which the true feelings of the work force could be determined when establishing the right to trade union recognition. We debated whether total reliance on a ballot would be the right way forward. In earlier speeches in the House, I spoke with some force about how the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service had worked on that problem, and noted that on some occasions, it would reject a ballot of employees that appeared to favour recognition of a union.
The amendments seem to acknowledge that other ways exist to establish a work force's true intent with regard to recognition of a union that will act on members' behalf. Those alternative ways would recognise the needs of particular workplaces and units, and I hope that the Minister will elaborate on that when he responds to the debate.

Mr. Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for her helpful remarks.

Mrs. Browning: I hope that the Minister is well.

Mr. McCartney: I think that the Conservative party has mounted a campaign to keep me here so that I will change my mind about some matters. However, I will not do that this afternoon.
I must take issue with the hon. Lady about small and medium-sized enterprises. The previous Conservative Government closed such businesses at the rate of one every three minutes in every working day. Between 1992 and 1997, there was a net loss of 70,000 small businesses each year, and a total of 350,000 such losses in the whole period. In 1998, the first year of this Government, there has been a net gain of 38,000 in the sector. The number


of small businesses is growing under this Government, whereas hundreds of thousands were forced to the wall by the previous Government's economic policies.
This Government have dealt sensitively with small and medium-sized enterprises. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper and what happened thereafter was a major consultation exercise on the balancing of rights and obligations in the workplace. No one except the Conservative party would argue that there are not circumstances in which it is legitimate in a disagreement for the CAC to test, by a ballot or by other means, whether recognition should proceed in a company with more than 21 employees.
4.45 pm 
Many small companies already recognise unions on a voluntary basis. The Government want to encourage voluntary arrangements for recognition in companies of any size. The procedure comes into play only when there is a disagreement. There is no requirement on companies with fewer than 21 employees to go through statutory recognition procedures.
The Government are sensitive to the needs of small business. Indeed, as a Government, we advocate small business in a very big way, if I may put it like that. The introduction of the Small Business Service shortly by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry is indicative of this Government's strategy of involvement and advocacy throughout Whitehall and the economy on behalf of small businesses. There are no grounds for the Conservatives to argue that the Government are anti-small business.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton wants to hide behind small businesses to promote her anti-trade union feelings. That is the real issue.

Mrs. Browning: Given that the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce and the Institute of Directors have all said in terms that the definition of a small business in the Bill should allow more than 21 employees—the threshold that the Government insist on setting—that is clearly not a political agenda. Those businesses are sending a message to a Government who say that they are concerned about and interested in small businesses, but who are refusing even to listen to the voice of small business. That does not stack up with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has got it wrong again. The Government listened to the voice of business, both in the preparation for the White Paper and in consultation so far. That is why we have the threshold. The proposal is in the Bill because we listened. Let us remember that at the start of the process there was opposition to the recognition arrangements. We accept that there is a difference of opinion about the principle of recognition, but the Government have bent over backwards to secure agreement among social partners on a range of measures within the recognition process. Where there has not been agreement, the Government have produced balanced proposals.
I have listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and of her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), before he moved on to pastures new. We sometimes miss the right hon. Gentleman. That is not the hon. Lady's fault, but occasionally he brought a spark to our debates, given his rather extreme views on employment relations in the workplace. The hon. Lady may have similar views and, from her point of view, may put them over more convincingly than her right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Opposition amendments are really inspired by hostility to trade unions, which the Conservatives see as an incubus on business? In fact, well-regulated businesses of any size receive great support and help from trade unions. They flag up employee discontent at an early stage and allow conduits for problems to be resolved satisfactorily. They flag up health and safety issues.
There are a variety of matters on which anyone who runs a business should set out to have a good relationship with the trade unions, so that the business can be run efficiently and well.

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. Employers have increasingly moved away from the agenda of the 1980s and early 1990s, when confrontation was the name of the game and managers of companies and their owners were isolated from the work force. The Conservatives encouraged confrontation. We have now moved to an era of more partnership, where employers see equal value in ensuring that the work force have got representation that enables them to communicate effectively with them, to see them as their most important asset and to see the trade unions who represent the work force as part of the process of securing a long-term future for the company concerned.

Mrs. Browning: rose—

Mr. McCartney: The minute that I mention trade unions, the hon. Lady is up on her hind legs.

Mrs. Browning: Indeed I am, because it was the Conservative legislation of the 1980s that set union members free to have a say. That legislation, which was opposed by the Minister and the Labour party, ensured that the people—he will be familiar with that term—got the power in the workplace. We took it away from union bosses who had abused it for decades. I am accused by Labour of not being in favour of trade unions, but the point the Minister raised about merchant seamen related to an amendment to employment legislation that I made the previous Government accept in the previous Parliament. I pioneered it on behalf of merchant seamen. I need no lectures from Labour.

Mr. McCartney: Having been sacked under a Conservative Government for seeking to recruit people to trade unions, I think that the hon. Lady's comments have a hollow ring. The Conservative party and its Front-Bench team have made their views clear. They oppose trade unions and effective trade unionism. They undermine at each stage the concept of partnership in the workplace, and continue with the old language of us and them and the old concept of employee representation. We have


moved on decades, but the hon. Lady is still back in the 1970s, 1980s or early 1990s. As we go into the next century, we are trying to provide through this Bill a new basis of partnership in the workplace, with rights and responsibilities. That is what we have set out our stall with, and it increasingly has the support of the business community.
I have not found the hon. Lady's arguments so far convincing. The amendments would allow a union to be recognised on the basis of 21 workers, but derecognised on the basis of 50. That is hardly logical or sensible. I shall address the underlying point of the 21-worker threshold for recognition and derecognition.

Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend might be interested to know that I held a two-hour consultation with small and medium-sized businesses in the Dearne valley through the Dearne valley business club on Friday. They welcomed the Small Business Service and when we discussed taxation and regulation, not one employer raised a concern about our recognition proposals. Does he agree that despite the protestation of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) that she is making a last-ditch attempt to protect small business, there is in fact a large last-ditch attempt to extend the licence of some employers unilaterally to deny the right of workers to representation through a trade union, even if there is a strong majority in support in the firm?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton cannot in 18 minutes of this debate wash away the 18 years of incompetence towards small business of the previous Government. She is trying to curry favour with small businesses.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Small Ministers.

Mr. McCartney: As well as being anti-union, Conservative Members are sizeist. I can see the hon. Gentleman eye to eye from here and if he wants to contribute, he is welcome.
No small businesses in Britain will be impressed by the Conservative party's deathbed conversion to looking after their interests in this place. Most small businesses see the Conservative party as irrelevant to the needs of the next decade, to the development of their businesses and the economy, and to the stable macro-economic policy that goes with it. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is trying to do a disservice to the tens of thousands of small businesses that recognise trade unions and want to continue that. Increasingly, since the introduction of this Bill, employers are asking trade unions to talk to them about recognition. The culture is changing out there. The hon. Lady may want to stand on the beach and stop the tide coming in, but she will not—she cannot. Employers want effective, good working relationships with trade unions.
I understand the hon. Lady's stated desire to protect small firms from onerous demands; I shall return to that point in a moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) was right to point out that in all the discussions held by Labour Members, whether Ministers or not, there is continuing dialogue with small businesses—in our constituencies, regionally and

nationally. They come to us with practical problems and issues; they are not fundamentally opposed to their employees having a say, or being represented in the workplace by a union of the employees' choice. Nor are they opposed to effective information and consultation processes in the workplace.
Small businesses have an entirely different agenda, which is more practical and down to earth. They want the Government to be alongside them; that is why the Small Business Service will be an outstanding success as an advocate for small businesses in their relationship with the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth introduced the Bill that became the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998—another ground-breaking piece of legislation which assists in the prevention of disputes or in their resolution so that they do not go before employment tribunals. That was another attempt by the Government to provide new services, especially so that small businesses and employees could resolve their differences without having to go to a tribunal. The Government are putting in place a range of measures to help to improve employment relations but, if disputes arise, those measures will help to resolve them effectively and quickly.

Mrs. Browning: If everything is so wonderful, why does the right hon. Gentleman think that in the Institute of Directors "Fairness at Work" research paper, a company states:
We employ less than 20 people at present and with the Government's current attitude we're likely to stay that way."?
Is the agenda to keep small businesses small?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady knows that the previous Conservative Government were not even interested in keeping them small. They buried them—for every three minutes of every working day, one small business went bust under the Tories. Under the Labour Government, small businesses are flourishing—a 38,000 net gain in 1998 during our first year in government. We are determined to see a growth in the small and medium-sized business sector; that is why we reduced corporation tax from 23 to 20p in the pound—the lowest rate ever, and it will be kept there, or below, for this Parliament. We introduced a 10p starting rate of tax to help new companies to get established, and to be effective in maintaining and achieving growth. That is why we have put huge sums into investment in small businesses and given them access to venture capital. The Government are serious about the promotion of small businesses in the economy.
I could list a range of measures. However, I advise the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton to read my speech in Hansard of 25 June, when we debated innovation and enterprise. That whole debate was on the Government's strategy for small and medium-sized enterprises. The hon. Lady is just plain wrong. It goes back to the point I made earlier. She cannot get off the hook; she is anti-trade union. She does not want unions to be effective in the workplace.
As for the point about the Institute of Directors, I have a good working relationship with the institute. I cannot call its members "comrades", as I call my colleagues in the Confederation of British Industry—I am not quite sure that I can use that word of my colleagues in the Institute


of Directors. There are some matters on which we disagree and the matter raised by the hon. Lady is one of them. The Institute of Directors has been opposed to the whole concept of recognition. I accept that its members hold that view. However, that does not prevent me from having a fair and effective working relationship with the institute on a range of other issues. I want a good relationship with the institute and I have one. This is just one of the issues on which we disagree.
However, it is interesting to note that many of the companies that are members of the institute recognise trade unions. For all the huffing and puffing, when it comes to the practicalities and the day-to-day arrangements for effective consultation processes and working relationships, they are more than happy to engage with trade unions—increasingly so.

Mr. Phil Woolas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as well as being hostile to trade unions, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) misunderstands the point? It is quite possible in a firm of 19 or 20 employees, under the rights of individual representation—rather than the recognition given by the Bill—for a trade union to have access to an employer 19 times over. In every business, there comes a point when an employer would sooner deal with one collective representative than try to deal with a series of individual problems. Given that the balance has to be struck somewhere between those two points—collective recognition and individual representation—do not many companies, especially those in the clothing and textile sector—

5 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not make such long interventions.

Mr. McCartney: That intervention took longer than 21 seconds, so it is not allowed under the statutory procedures of the House. However, my hon. Friend's point is fair and valid, and would be echoed by all Labour Members. Employers want to have effective relationships in the workplace, and we as a Government are trying to get the balance right between individual and collective rights. At disciplinary and grievance proceedings, all employees will, for the first time, have the statutory right to be represented, or to have someone with them, whether that is a full-time, part-time or voluntary trade union official or a fellow employee.
The basis of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is a stated desire to protect small firms from onerous demands, but I believe that that is only a shield to cover her anti-trade union views. However, the Government share her stated views: we do not and will not place onerous demands on small businesses. That is why, at the end of the consultation process, we were able to confirm the White Paper's statement about arrangements for businesses employing fewer than 21 workers.
Unlike the hon. Lady, we thought that that limit would not place a terrible burden on small businesses. After taking evidence and discussing the matter with various firms, we could have chosen a larger or smaller figure if

we had thought it appropriate; however, we decided that, on balance, 21 reflected our judgment of the best figure. I am happy to repeat the assurances that we have given previously. We believe that 21 is a sensible and workable figure, but we have taken powers to amend it if, in practice, it turns out to be too low or too high.
Let me remind the House why we introduced the recognition procedure: it is to promote voluntary agreements between unions and employers, and to allow workers who want the protection and representation of a union in bargaining their pay, hours and holidays to have a right to that protection and representation, if that is what the majority of workers want. That is a common sense approach. The issue has been discussed both here and in the other place, and every time the Conservatives have expressed the assumption that trade unions are necessarily bad for business. That is not true.
An increasing number of members of the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and similar organisations accept and involve trade unions in their activities and in the workplace. Industrial relations are not a zero sum game: that one side gains does not mean that another loses. Our proposals are balanced. Workers, whether or not they are union members, will benefit from working in partnership with their employer, and the employer will benefit as well. It is a question of mutual trust and mutual involvement, instilling a sense of belonging and involvement and so helping the business to grow.
I cannot agree with the hon. Lady's amendments, either in the letter or in the spirit. Therefore, forlornly, I ask her not to press them to a vote.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 121.

Division No. 273]
[5.4 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Borrow, David


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Alexander, Douglas
Bradshaw, Ben


Allan, Richard
Brake, Tom


Allen, Graham
Brand, Dr Peter


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Breed, Colin


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Austin, John
Browne, Desmond


Ballard, Jackie
Buck, Ms Karen


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barren, Kevin
Butler, Mrs Christine


Battle, John
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Cable, Dr Vincent


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beggs, Roy
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Berth, Rt Hon A J



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cann, Jamie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Caplin, Ivor


Bennett, Andrew F
Casale, Roger


Benton, Joe
Caton, Martin


Berry, Roger
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Betts, Clive
Chaytor, David


Blackman, Liz
Chidgey, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chisholm, Malcolm


Boateng, Paul
Clapham, Michael






Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Cooper, Yvette
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Cotter, Brian
Home Robertson, John


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cummings, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dafis, Cynog
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Illsley, Eric


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Efford, Clive
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Keetch, Paul


Etherington, Bill
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kemp, Fraser


Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Fisher, Mark
Kidney, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kilfoyle, Peter


Flint, Caroline
Kirkwood, Archy


Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Foulkes, George
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Galloway, George
Linton, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Livingstone, Ken


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAllion, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gorrie, Donald



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonnell, John


Grocott, Bruce
McFall, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gunnell, John
McIsaac, Shona


Hain, Peter
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary





Mackinlay, Andrew
Sanders, Adrian


McNamara, Kevin
Savidge, Malcolm


McNulty, Tony
Sawford, Phil


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian


McWalter, Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mallaber, Judy
Singh, Marsha


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Maxton, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Meale, Alan
Snape, Peter


Merron, Gillian
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin
Stevenson, George


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mullin, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug



Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Hara, Eddie



Olner, Bill
Temple-Morris, Peter


Organ, Mrs Diana
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pearson, Ian
Timms, Stephen


Pendry, Tom
Tipping, Paddy


Perham, Ms Linda
Todd, Mark


Pickthall, Colin
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pond, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pound, Stephen
Tyler, Paul


Powell, Sir Raymond
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Dawn
Watts, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Webb, Steve


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quinn, Lawrie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wicks, Malcolm


Rammell, Bill
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rapson, Syd



Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wills, Michael


Rendel, David
Wilson, Brian


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Audrey


Rooney, Terry
Woolas, Phil


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wray, James


Roy, Frank
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ruane, Chris
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruddock, Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. David Hanson and


Salter, Martin
Mr. David Clelland.






NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Loughton, Tim


Bercow, John
Luff, Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Blunt, Crispin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Body, Sir Richard
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brady, Graham
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Malins, Humfrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maples, John


Burns, Simon
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Butterfill, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa



Moss, Malcolm


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)



Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Pickles, Eric


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan, Alan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan Smith, Iain
St Aubyn, Nick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Evans, Nigel
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Faber, David
Shepherd, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fallon, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Flight, Howard
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Forsythe, Clifford
Spring, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fox, Dr Liam
Steen, Anthony


Fraser, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gale, Roger
Swayne, Desmond


Garnier, Edward
Syms, Robert


Gibb, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gray, James
Townend, John


Green, Damian
Trend, Michael


Greenway, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Viggers, Peter


Hague, Rt Hon William
Walter, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Waterson, Nigel


Hawkins, Nick
Wells, Bowen


Hayes, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wilkinson, John


Hunter, Andrew
Willetts, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilshire, David


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Woodward, Shaun


Key, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Young, Rt Hon Sir George



Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:


Letwin, Oliver
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
and


Lidington, David
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have before made a point of order about the hurdles facing hon. Members who are working in their offices in Norman Shaw North. If the traffic lights are against them when they are crossing the top end of

Bridge street to enter the parliamentary estate to try to vote in a Division, they are held up probably by a minute and a half, which is critical during a Division. I have just missed a Division for that reason. I hope that, as this is the second time that I have raised this issue, the authorities will take it into consideration for the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I reply to the hon. Lady? The hon. Gentleman cannot make a further point of order until I have done so. This business is time limited, so points of order are taking up time that is allotted to hon. Members who may want to debate the business. However, to answer the hon. Lady, I recall her raising this matter before, and I hope that the House authorities will take note of her remarks because this is not a matter for the Chair.

Sir Peter Emery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for taking up any of the time that is allotted for the business, but postponing points of order until after the Division means that the Chair has no way of correcting problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who was locked out of the Lobby at the last moment, as everyone saw, might have been allowed to enter the Lobby to vote. The Chair has, on occasion, allowed late-comers to enter the Lobby, but that facility is useless if one cannot make a point of order until the vote is over. I do not ask you to make a ruling now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I should hate a hasty decision to stand for ever, but will you discuss the matter with Madam Speaker and bear it in mind?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I note the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may raise a point of order if it relates to this matter. I made the point that we are taking up time allotted for this business, and I have given an adequate reply.

Mr. Winterton: I have an agreeable and close relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who raised the original point of order. It is a matter about which I, too, am concerned. During Divisions, could the traffic lights be manned by a member of the Metropolitan police, particularly when there are so many tourists in London, to ensure that Members of Parliament can gain ready and speedy access to the precincts of the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Lords amendments Nos. 36 to 279 agreed to.

Schedule 3

BALLOTS AND NOTICES

Lords amendment: No. 280, in page 60, line 8, at end insert—

("Separate workplace ballots

("Separate workplace ballots
. The following shall be substituted for section 228 (separate workplace ballots)—

"Separate workplace ballots.

228.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), this section applies if the members entitled to vote in a ballot by virtue of section 227 do not all have the same workplace.

(2) This section does not apply if the union reasonably believes that all those members have the same workplace.

(3) Subject to section 228A, a separate ballot shall be held for each workplace; and entitlement to vote in each ballot shall be accorded equally to, and restricted to, members of the union who—

(a) are entitled to vote by virtue of section 227, and
(b) have that workplace.

(4) In this section and section 228A "workplace" in relation to a person who is employed means—

if the person works at or from a single set of premises, those premises, and
in any other case, the premises with which the person's employment has the closest connection.

Separate workplaces: single and aggregate ballots.

228A.—(1) Where section 228(3) would require separate ballots to be held for each workplace, a ballot may be held in place of some or all of the separate ballots if one of subsections (2) to (4) is satisfied in relation to it.

(2) This subsection is satisfied in relation to a ballot if the workplace of each member entitled to vote in the ballot is the workplace of at least one member of the union who is affected by the dispute.

(3) This subsection is satisfied in relation to a ballot if entitlement to vote is accorded to, and limited to, all the members of the union who—

(a) according to the union's reasonable belief have an occupation of a particular kind or have any of a number of particular kinds of occupation, and
(b) are employed by a particular employer, or by any of a number of particular employers, with whom the union is in dispute.

(4) This subsection is satisfied in relation to a ballot if entitlement to vote is accorded to, and limited to, all the members of the union who are employed by a particular employer, or by any of a number of particular employers, with whom the union is in dispute.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (2) the following are members of the union affected by a dispute—

(a) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a decision which the union reasonably believes the employer has made or will make concerning a matter specified in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of section 244 (meaning of "trade dispute"), members whom the decision directly affects,
(b) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a matter specified in subsection (1)(d) of that section, members whom the matter directly affects,
(c) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a matter specified in subsection (1)(e) of that section, persons whose membership or non-membership is in dispute,

(d) if the dispute relates (wholly or partly) to a matter specified in subsection (1)(f) of that section, officials of the union who have used or would use the facilities concerned in the dispute." ")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Ian McCartney.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 281 to 283.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most interested that more than 100 amendments from the other place have been agreed to by the House. Does that not demonstrate the most outstanding performance by the House of Lords in constructively amending this Bill? The Government of the day, who are hostile to the role of the House of Lords, have found it possible to agree to dozens and dozens of amendments proposed in the upper House.
I draw this to the House's attention to show my support for the House of Lords and the valuable job that it does.

Mr. Eric Forth: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that he cannot use amendment No. 280 as a means of supporting the other place. I was hoping that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would not do so, either.

Mr. Forth: I was about to endorse amendment No. 280 and to say that we should be grateful to the other place for deliberating as it has on this and many other amendments.

Mrs. Browning: If my right hon. Friend looks at the Bill, he will see that, since it left this place, it has been amended substantially by the other place, which is why there are so many amendments on the amendment paper.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We should pay tribute to the quality of the work that has been done by the other place. It is reflected in amendment No. 280 and in many other amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned many other amendments. He can discuss only the amendments in the group. This is not an opportunity for a general debate on the other place; it is specifically on the amendment before us, which covers trade union ballots.

Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the subject of ballots, above any other, the fascinating thing is that the other place should have taken such a view and that the Government should be asking this House to agree with it. That, in itself, is quite remarkable. The Government's original criticism of the other place was that it was not supported by a balloting procedure, yet here we have the other place amending legislation in the whole area of ballots. I shall not digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it so happens that I support the concept of an elected upper House, which would involve ballots.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given a ruling. The make-up of the other place has nothing to do with


the amendment before us. It might be helpful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst if he thinks of these as normal amendments. He gets confused only if he starts dealing with the other place. I call Mr. Forth.

Mr. Forth: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Leigh: I wanted to remind my right hon. Friend that we are trying to take forward a process, with regard to trade unions, that furthers democracy. We are talking about ballots. Would it not be absurd if, in a trade union, there were only two voters for a particular post, so that, if one died, the remaining voter had a unique opportunity to elect the remaining member? If there were only three members and three voters, and one died, it would be possible to come to an agreement. That is precisely what is happening in the other place. If one of the two remaining Labour hereditary peers dies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is totally out of order. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst continues down this line, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat, because he is not keeping within the terms of the amendment before us.

Mr. Forth: I wholeheartedly endorse the excellent work done by the other place and the contribution that it has made in the context of this amendment. I find it heartening that it is now being supported by the Government. We should take note of that, and I hope that

the House will wish to record its satisfaction with the contribution that the other place has made to the quality of this legislation.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 281 to 322, No. 323 and Government amendment (c) thereto, and Nos. 324 to 331 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the motion on the Reasons Committee.

Mr. Forth: I recall that this motion is debatable. We have debated it on previous occasions, and I think it appropriate to take this opportunity to explore its implications. I say that particularly in the context of a motion that the House considered earlier, and on which, in fact, it divided.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Under the guillotine, the motion is not debatable; I must put the Question forthwith.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Ian McCartney and Mr. Greg Pope; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Hill.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Employment Relations Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

Ordered,
That the Order of the House of 22nd July 1999 be supplemented as follows—

Subsequent stages

1. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Employment Relations Bill.

2. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

3. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

5. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Miscellaneous

6.—(1) This paragraph applies to proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill and to proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 4.

(2) Standing Order No.15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings; and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

(3) Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24, commence at a time when proceedings to which this paragraph applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

7. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on any further Lords Message are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.—[Mr. Hill.]

Local Government Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 24th March 1999 be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2. (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended.
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment, and
(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(2) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

7. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Miscellaneous

8. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords, and
(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

11. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

12. Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24, commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

13. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The Local Government Bill left the House of Commons on 24 March for another place, and has now completed its passage through the Upper House. It has been further improved by my noble Friends, and we therefore have a few amendments to consider. The Bill has already been subjected to extensive scrutiny both here and in another place, and I think it entirely appropriate to limit the amount of time available for discussion of the amendments.

Local government needs to be clear about exactly when the Bill will become an Act, so progress on it is very important. We need to make progress on, in particular, work relating to best value.

I understand that, in the main, the debates in the upper House were conducted in an excellent spirit, with noble Lords committed to clarifying the Bill and its implications. I hope that something of that spirit still attaches to the Bill and that we can have a productive and constructive discussion. All the amendments that we have to consider were introduced in another place by the Government, whether to clarify existing provisions or to meet concerns that had been expressed by noble Lords. They are intended not to be controversial, but solely to improve the Bill.

Therefore, I shall spend no further time discussing the guillotine motion and hope that we can move on as soon as possible to considering the amendments.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: By any standards, this is an extraordinary motion, but, sadly, all too typical of the Government. There is a danger of regarding such motions as an everyday event. Indeed, they are almost becoming that; they are becoming a habit with the Government. Better than any glossy annual report, the motion reveals the Government's true state: it shows vividly their control-freak tendency.
We have to ask ourselves first: what has the motion to do with the Bill? The Minister referred to the history of the Bill. During the debate on the timetable motion, she talked about the scrutiny in Committee. She said:
Debate was conducted in good spirit: it was overwhelmingly constructive, and there was a general intention to improve the Bill, not to wreck it."—[Official Report, 24 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 399.]

Ms Armstrong: Hear, hear.

Mr. Waterson: I assume from that sedentary intervention that the Minister still stands by those sentiments. She made some complaint at the time that the Report stage was taking too long, hence the allocation of time motion. She will have read carefully the debates in the Lords. Indeed, she has conceded that the Lords had, to use her word, improved the Bill. One hesitates to think what will happen after the Lords have been emasculated by the Government.
The Lords debates have been constructive and concise. Many amendments were discussed in the other place and not pressed to a vote. There was clearly no attempt to delay the Bill. The Minister has implicitly conceded that point.

Ms Armstrong: indicated assent.

Mr. Waterson: The Minister does so again from a sedentary position.
We shall discuss an amendment on consultation with outside bodies over best value. That point, which was raised by Opposition Members in the Lords, was accepted in principle by the Minister in the other place and reproduced in the form of a Government amendment. That is just one concrete example of how the other place has set about the Bill in a constructive and workmanlike fashion—so much so that, in effect, all today's amendments are Government amendments, many of them technical in character.
I have a shrewd suspicion that debating all the amendments will take less time than is allocated for in the timetable motion. Therefore, why are we having the motion at all? It clearly has nothing to do with the business that is before us.
We shall not, of course, have the opportunity, because of the utter reasonableness of their lordships, to debate again some of the big issues in the Bill. The Government's desire to be over-prescriptive and over-centralising in their attitude to local government contrasts starkly with the Conservative party's approach to local government: it wants to localise and to repatriate powers to it. The Bill will, of course, give the Government unprecedented and draconian powers against local government.
The Government were not willing to accept in the Bill even a sunset provision. As the Bill now makes no such provision, we shall not be able to debate the matter. Neither does the Bill contain de minimis provision. Neither shall be we be able to debate the continuation, under another name, of capping—despite the Government's clear general election pledge to get rid of it.


I return to my question: why exactly are the Government pressing their timetable motion today? Why use a sledgehammer to crack a nut? There can be no suggestion of the Opposition seeking to disrupt the passage of this business. Just a few days ago, on 22 July, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) rightly said—it applies also to this motion—that the Government's guillotines are
caught up in some wider Government agenda".
He went on to say:
The guillotine has nothing to do with these two Bills; it is revenge"—
for something else that happened.
I endorse those remarks entirely in the context of this guillotine. I also entirely agree with the shadow Leader of the House's remarks, made in the same debate, that
The guillotine is therefore unnecessary and vindictive … it is an attempt to unite the Labour party after its well-advertised splits and tensions, and it does so at the expense of the freedoms of the House."—[Official Report, 22 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 1363-67.]
The fact is that the Government are becoming positively promiscuous in their use of such motions to crush dissent and stifle debate. The motions reveal business managers' nervousness half-way through this Parliament, and after local and European election results and the recent Eddisbury by-election. I was pleased to see my new hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) take his seat earlier today.
As we approach the next general election, Government Whips will begin to find Labour Back Benchers less easy to control. We are also now entering the much-heralded so-called "year of delivery". However, between now and the next general election, glossy brochures will no longer be sufficient: the Government will have to start delivering on some of their pledges.
I am sure that there are other reasons for the motion—such as Labour Members who like to be tucked up in bed at an early hour; and Ministers who do not like facing the fast-bowling, or want to get off on their holidays. Perhaps the impending reshuffle, however, is the most significant reason for this ill-judged motion. I wish the Minister—I am sure that my right. hon. and hon. Friends will agree—nothing but the best in the impending reshuffle. We enjoy having her where she is, and wish her a long and happy stay in that position. However, reshuffles affect not only Ministers, but Whips.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend was very selective. I wonder whether he was being so deliberately?

Mr. Waterson: I was probably being selective accidentally, if that is of any help to my hon. Friend—who made a cogent point, if only I knew what it was.
The fact is that such motions are a matter of not merely Ministers and Labour Back Benchers but Government Whips—who wish to appear macho, to protect their own jobs. It remains to be seen how successful they are in that endeavour.
As for the Opposition, I shall certainly not be seeking to divide the House on the motion. The Government, with their large majority, could certainly—yet again—steamroller it through. However, in the context not only of the Bill and its provisions, but of Parliament and its rights and duties, it is important that we should make it absolutely clear that we wholly deprecate the motion, and think that it is wholly unnecessary.

Mr. Eric Forth: In the Minister's brief introduction to the debate, she relied fairly heavily on the argument that the matters that we shall be considering were "non-controversial"—I think that that was the term that she used. She seemed to imply that the provisions had been eased quietly through another place—where little debate on them was necessary—and that they were all just jolly good, non-controversial things on which we need not detain ourselves for too long. That in itself is controversial. It is not good enough for a Minister to say that something is non-controversial simply because she says so, and that therefore the House should pay little or no attention to it. That assertion needs to be challenged.
That would be so in any case. However, when one looks, even cursorily, at the headings for the groupings of amendments to be covered in three hours, if we agree to the motion—which I am reluctant to do without further clarification—one sees that we are to deal with matters such as "Consultation on performance indicators." That is a very broad subject. Consultation is never uncontroversial—maybe not the fact of it, but its extent. Those who are to be involved in consultation is a matter for debate.
We are then to be asked to consider:
Inspections: housing benefit and council tax benefit.
What could be more controversial than these matters? The House could easily spend three hours on each of them. Then we come to:
Powers of the Secretary of State, and commencement".
If there is one thing that should make the House anxious, it is the phrase:
Powers of the Secretary of State".
These matters have been debated with passion in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House time and again, and rightly so. In that innocuous phrase could lie any number of controversial matters which the Minister has sought to brush under the carpet and slide through the House without further consideration. That is to say nothing about commencement which, I confess, may be relatively uncontroversial. However, in other circumstances, the nature and timing of the commencement of a Bill can be a matter for some argument.
We then come to an amendment charmingly headed "Minor and drafting". If ever I saw a candidate for closer inspection, that is it. How often have we come across matters of great importance buried under that innocuous-sounding heading?

Sir Paul Beresford: One aspect of "Minor and drafting" concerns the Greater London Authority, as the Government have had to shift the numbering of 10 clauses because the first 60 clauses have had another 10 added. Is not that an indication of the quality of the drafting and the thinking of the Department in proposing the Bill?

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who reinforces my point. Concealed within this heading can be any number of changes—some of which, I accept, may be reasonable. However, others may well materially affect the substance of the Bill, and therefore deserve further consideration.
Last but not least, we are to consider "Council Tax and precepts"—a matter which, in the past, has often given rise to debates that have lasted a whole day. In your many years of distinguished service to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have been party to debates in Standing Committee, if not on the Floor of the House, in which "Council tax and precepts" alone could have given rise to many hours of impassioned debate by hon. Members. So many aspects of this matter would normally require detailed consideration and debate.
I am beginning to wonder whether the motion to restrict debate is remotely acceptable. I hope that the Minister will feel it necessary to expand on what she said to reassure us why she believes that only three hours is sufficient to deal with all these important matters. I do not accept her characterisation of these matters as non-controversial. How could council tax and the powers of the Secretary of State be non-controversial? I have never heard of such a thing.
It is getting towards the end of term, and the Minister has her bucket and spade on her mind—some of her right hon. Friends have caravanning on their minds. Ministers are all worried sick about the reshuffle, about which the Prime Minister seems unable to make up his mind. However, those are not good enough reasons to hurry through the business this evening. Ministers are all worried out of their minds about losing their gigantic ministerial salaries, private offices and chauffeur-driven cars, but they are paid enough and they should be prepared to be here as long as necessary to do justice to the matters before us. They should not say insultingly that they want to rush business through in three hours so that they can go to their offices and worry about whether they will still be in their jobs tomorrow.
I hope that the Minister will seek to expand on these matters as I ponder whether I wish to support the guillotine motion.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I listened closely to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), the Opposition spokesman, and I heard nothing worthwhile to support his objection to the guillotine motion—a motion which, on principle, Liberal Democrats would normally want to oppose. However, we need reasons for opposing the motion.
A great deal of time has been spent on this Bill in this House, in Committee and in another place. We will spend some time on it tonight, and there will be opportunities in future to spend more time on it.
The reasons given by the official Opposition seem to have nothing to do with the business before us, and are simply opposition for opposition's sake. I hope that we can draw this debate to a fairly prompt close so that we can get on with debating the Lords amendments.

Mr. Edward Leigh: That was an extraordinary speech from someone who claims to represent a party which is seeking to hold the Government to account.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that it was hardly an extraordinary speech? It was a typical speech from a Liberal Democrat.

Mr. Leigh: I agree, and to take my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to task for what I thought was an over-moderate speech and for daring to speak one word of opposition to the Government was ridiculous of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders).
I wish to refer to timetable motions, which were quite rare. There were no timetable motions at all in the House until the controversies of the Government of Ireland legislation in the last century, when the Bill raged back and forth on Report alone for some 80 days and the Speaker had to stay in his seat literally for hour after hour. The whole Government were in danger of crumbling because they could not keep their people on the Benches for those hours.
When I entered this House, I did not think that timetable motions were applicable to minor amendments at this late stage of a Bill. The Government cannot have it both ways. If these amendments are uncontroversial, surely there is no need for a timetable motion. Surely nobody suspects that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would talk for hour after hour and hold up the Government's business. In fact, we will not be able to hold anything up, because there is no major business to conclude before we all go on holiday tomorrow.
Three hours is not long for any debate, but if my right hon. and hon. Friends wanted to spend three hours on the timetable motion, there would be no time at all to discuss the amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst maintains that the amendments are not uncontroversial. That may be part of the truth, but they contain nothing that is likely to detain the House for hour after hour.
The House will have to come to a sensible conclusion about timetable motions if we are to protect our traditional role of scrutinising the Executive. Are we entering a period when virtually every Bill is timetabled? Some think that that would be a good idea.

Ms Armstrong: indicated assent

Mr. Leigh: Some believe that one should have an agreement from the word go, to stop filibustering and prevent the Opposition from talking for hour after hour in Committee while Government Back Benchers are told by their Whips to say nothing. That is a perfectly justifiable point of view.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend mentioned filibustering. I hope that he will accept that that is impossible in the House because of the diligence and wisdom of the occupants of the Chair, who will always prevent any suggestion of time wasting or frivolity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should not try to draw the Chair into the argument.

Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend may not have noticed just now that the Minister showed that she wholeheartedly agreed that the more business was guillotined, the better it was from her point of view.

Mr. Leigh: The Minister is an honest lady who is entitled to her point of view. She believes that all business should be timetabled. That is a rational and logical point of view. That might be convenient for the Government, because it would mean that they could plan their business exactly, but it might not be entirely convenient for the Opposition or, more important, for the process of democracy, which relies on Oppositions using the one power that is available to them—to speak. That power has not been taken lightly and has often resulted in the harsh light of scrutiny being thrown on Bills.
Are we playing a game in the House, in which the Government say their piece, we say ours, and they get their business through with some cosy arrangement agreed through the usual channels; or is this a living and vibrant place in which people feel passionately and use the power available to Back Benchers to talk and talk and subject the Executive to scrutiny, perhaps thereby making the Government slip up? That is what we are paid to do. It is a noble and important role for Oppositions.

Mr. Swayne: When programme motion after programme motion was agreed between Government and Opposition Front Benchers during the passage of the Scotland Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to give me the history of the Scotland Bill. I was sitting here at the time. We do not want to get into that.

Mr. Leigh: This is not the Scotland Bill; it is not a matter of huge controversy. In the 1970s, we took weeks and weeks to discuss devolution legislation. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was there day after day—as were the late Mr. Enoch Powell, and Mr. Michael Foot—holding the Government to account. What is wrong with that?
We will not have hour after hour and day after day of controversy on the Bill, but we are saying that it is treating the House with contempt to allow only three hours for our deliberations, including the timetable motion. The Government should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The problem when a programme motion is agreed between Government and Opposition Front Benchers is that, in the ordinary course of debate, issues are discovered that require further elucidation by the Minister or, indeed, by Back Benchers. The timetable motion, agreed in advance, simply cannot take account of that. That is why such motions should be avoided if at all possible.
The motion is entirely avoidable. It may be that we will not come across issues that could have detained us long, but it remains a possibility. That is why it is pointless to have a programme motion when one is clearly not needed.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,
That the Order of the House of 24th March 1999 be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

2. (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended.
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment followed by the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended,
(c) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House does disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment, and
(d) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

(2) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Subsequent stages

3. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall—

(a) put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair and has not been decided, and the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair,
(b) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message, and
(c) put forthwith the Question, That this House does agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

6. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

7. A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Miscellaneous

8. This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords, and
(c) proceedings of the kind mentioned in paragraph 6.

9. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

10. Proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(11) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(12) Where proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24, commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies.

(13) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which paragraph 8 applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Local Government Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 20, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to either of the amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 4

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND STANDARDS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 36, leave out ("such persons as he thinks fit.") and insert—
("(a) persons appearing to him to represent the best value authorities concerned, and
(b) such other persons (if any) as he thinks fit.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment further refines subsection 4(3) by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, to consult persons who appear to them to represent best value authorities, and other persons, if any, as they consider appropriate, before specifying performance indicators or standards under the clause.
The Government have made it clear, both in the local government White Papers published a year ago and regularly during the passage of this Bill through both Houses, that we intend to consult widely on performance indicators and standards before they are specified under the clause. Hon. Members will be pleased to see that commitment set out in the Bill. I hope that they will also be pleased to hear that we intend to consult on our draft suite of best value performance indicators and standards shortly.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Minister rightly said that the amendment is about consultation. It was a constant theme in the Bill's earlier stages both here and in another place that, given that the Government are taking draconian powers, there should be as wide a consultation as possible. The clause originally referred to the Secretary of State consulting anyone whom he saw fit to consult, so we welcome the amendment.
I agree with what the Minister said about the provenance of the amendment. It arose from a debate in the other place. It would insert into the Bill a requirement to consult with representatives of best value authorities when consulting on performance indicators and standards. That matter worried the Local Government Association and other bodies representing local government. The amendment reflects the views on all sides of the House of Lords.

Sir Paul Beresford: All hon. Members will agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but amendment No. 6, to which we will come later, would speed up the introduction of the provisions on best value.

Any delay would therefore mean that matters reserved for consultation would not be ready in time for the introduction of the legislation. Should not the Government delay implementation, or at least confine it to those measures that are on the face of the Bill?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a very practical point, which we shall debate in connection with amendment No. 6. I hope that the Minister responding to that debate will take my hon. Friend's remarks into account.
The amendment reflects the cross-party views of the House of Lords. We have always argued that, if the Government were to insist on taking such draconian powers, the consultation involved should be as wide as possible. The amendment also reflects the concerns of local government organisations, and those raised by Baroness Miller in the House of Lords. I welcome it.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: I wish only to emphasise that the amendment enjoyed cross-party agreement in the other place, where it was accepted that consultation was vital and should be as wide as possible. I hope that the Minister will spell out the limits of the consultation and assure the House that sufficient time will be available for it.

Mr. Meale: I assure the House that all appropriate authorities and associations will be consulted. Moreover, I can tell the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that there will be no delay. The Government believe that we can get the Bill on the road in time.

Lords amendment agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 13, to insert the following new clause—Inspections: housing benefit and council tax benefit—
.—(1) The following shall be substituted for section 139A(1) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (reports on administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit)—

"(1) The Secretary of State may authorise persons to consider and report to him on the administration by authorities of housing benefit and council tax benefit.
(2) The Secretary of State may ask persons authorised under subsection (1) to consider in particular—

(a) authorities' performance in the prevention and detection of fraud relating to housing benefit and council tax benefit;
(b) authorities' compliance with the requirements of Part I of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value).


(2A) A person may be authorised under subsection (1)—

(a) on such terms and for such period as the Secretary of State thinks fit;
(b) to act generally or in relation to a specified authority or authorities;
(c) to report on administration generally or on specified matters."



(2) In section 139C(1) of that Act (reports) for the words from "in particular" to the end there shall be substituted "in particular—

(a) in the prevention and detection of fraud relating to benefit, or
(b) for the purposes of complying with the requirements of Part I of the Local Government Act 1999 (best value).""

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Armstrong): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 8.

Ms Armstrong: Throughout the passage of this Bill in both Houses of Parliament the Government have stated that they are committed to ensuring that the legislative framework for best value should be as transparent as possible. The new clause in amendment No. 2 is therefore designed to put the benefit fraud inspectorate's powers on as clear a statutory footing as possible.
The benefit fraud inspectorate's work on the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit is very much in keeping with the ethos of best value, but the existing powers are framed in very specific, rather than general, terms. We want to make absolutely sure that the inspectorate can contribute its expertise to the best value scrutiny of this very important area of local authority work. This is, therefore, a technical amendment, designed to provide clarity about the extent of the BFI's powers to inspect authorities for the purposes of best value.
Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment that will ensure that clause 28(2)(b) correctly identifies the provisions that confer powers reserved to the Secretary of State that will not be exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment inserts two additional references into clause 28(2)(b). The first is to clause 23, which makes provision for inspection and other arrangements in respect of police authorities. The second new reference is to the new clause included in amendment No. 2, making arrangements in respect of inspection of council tax benefit administration and housing benefit administration. This again is a technical amendment designed to tidy up the Bill, clarify its application and take account of changes that we are making elsewhere.

Mr. Waterson: I shall not detain the House. The Minister rightly said that amendment No. 8 is purely technical. Amendment No. 2 is somewhat more substantial, and would have the effect of clarifying that pursuit of benefit fraud is part of the best value process. Lord Whitty made that point in the debate in the House of Lords, stating that
we wish to make absolutely sure that this very important area of local authority work is subject to the same best value scrutiny as will exist elsewhere."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
Although Conservative Members might have reservations about the implementation of best value and about its centralised and prescriptive approach, all hon. Members agree that it is important to bear down on

benefit fraud, wherever and however it occurs. It is clearly right that pursuit of fraud should be placed firmly in the best value regime. We support the amendment.

Mr. Sanders: I am worried about the problems encountered by the housing benefit authorities in the verification process. Increasing regulation and checks on claimants have caused significant delays for claimants and landlords. Although the amendment would permit investigation into whether the relevant administration is administering housing benefit correctly, the process of that investigation could impact on claimants and landlords alike. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.

Sir Paul Beresford: I, too, intend to be brief and helpful. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). All hon. Members are in favour of the benefit fraud inspectorate chasing up fraud, especially in housing benefit, where the problem is notorious. It makes sense to apply best value criteria to the new inspectorate.
However, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) was right to say that the new inspectorate will look closely at the work of local authorities. That will involve studying how their computer systems are run. Given the recent difficulties with student grants, it is easy to see the difficulties that might arise.
The BFI will be yet another body looking at best value. The most recent edition of the Municipal Journal shows that there are inspectorates for best value, housing, benefit fraud, social services, fire services and for police. Given that there is also the Office for Standards in Education, the Government have set up what amounts to a forum—or collegiate collection—for best value inspectorates that meet twice a year. To my surprise, the Minister had the audacity to be photographed in the middle of the inspectorates' membership. Her colleagues were wise enough to stand further to the back, but some are too tall to remain invisible.
The problem is that those inspectorates cost money. In all the tiers of local government, there are lots of non-productive jobs that cost an enormous amount of money, and the growing list of inspectorates will add to that.
The problem is that the inspectorate, in applying best value, will cost local authorities money. There is no indication of the costs. Perhaps the Minister can explain. To get some feeling for the likely costs, one has only to consider those for some of the other inspectorates. For example, I understand that the chief executive of Newham now heads the best value branch of the Audit Commission on a salary of £150,000 a year.
There is no indication in the amendment or the notes—or in the Minister's speech—of what that inspectorate will cost. One local authority in London estimates that an auditor will spend 150 days a year on best value alone. That will cost £300 a day, which is £45,000 a year—half the cost of a new council house. If we multiply that by 33, for each London authority, we realise that it will mean phenomenal costs for London alone and, for some of the inspectorates, it is for some doubtful benefit. In addition—ignoring those costs of £300 a day, or £45,000 a year, when an inspectorate arrives at a local authority—the authority must also allocate time for council officers to produce reports. Knowing some of the


Labour-controlled authorities, when they get a report on best value from the inspectorate, they will produce reports on the reports. There will be meetings, discussions and further reports, all costing enormous sums of money and requiring extra manpower.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer me now, but perhaps she could write to me with an estimate of the manpower increase for best value, the extra costs and where the costs of those services—if one can call them that—have been distributed.
The Minister cannot use the basis of the savings. Applying the provision across the average, it will not apply to some authorities, which are good and efficient. The savings will be negative. After all, compulsory competitive tendering saw to that.

Ms Armstrong: I thank hon. Members for the constructive way in which they have approached these amendments. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) asked about the verification framework and the significant delay in the collection of some housing benefit. That is not the issue that we are debating, but through best value we will discover more effectively those authorities that are dealing with housing benefit efficiently whatever the problems, ensuring that payments are made on time and they are reducing fraud.
One of our main aims is to learn about and celebrate good practice and ensure that we spread that. The administration of housing and council tax benefit varies considerably. The hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that housing management and aspects of benefit that cover both the Department of Social Security and local authorities are both part of the beacon council scheme this year, which was intended to spread good practice.

Mr. Sanders: I understand what the Minister is saying. My concern is that introducing another tier or inspection may cause further delay. Officers' minds will be turned to the inspection process, rather than the delivery of the benefits regime.

Ms Armstrong: I am disappointed by that intervention. As we said in Committee, at every stage in best value, councils have the opportunity to take a hold on matters. The intervention powers that we are discussing under the amendment are there to be used if everything else has failed. The amendment links in the benefit fraud inspectorate, which already exists and has a statutory basis. It is intended simply to ensure that that statutory basis coincides with best value and the best value regime.
Both the hon. Members for Torbay and for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) rightly made considerable play in Committee of the fact that the inspectorates needed to co-ordinate effectively and that there needed to be clarity. Much time is spent on the police inspectorate and how we would ensure that it was still able to continue its work with integrity and fit into best value. The amendment simply deals with the benefit fraud inspectorate and its statutory basis. It will ensure that that basis none the less allows and enables it to be involved in the best value regime. We are not talking about another tier, but about carefully ensuring effective co-ordination and co-operation.
I understand the hon. Member for Mole Valley wanting to make fun of a number of matters. I heard him talk enviously about the reshuffle and I know that he wishes

that he was part of the speculation. We have set up a forum so that we can ensure that each inspectorate co-operates effectively and is planning its programme of work so as to ensure that local authorities do not face huge additional burdens because of inspectors arriving all at the same time and so forth. The amendment will ensure effective co-ordination.

Sir Paul Beresford: I understand the Minister's reasoning and point of view but will she agree to answer in writing my question on costs and increasing manpower? I realise that it is impossible for her to answer it today.

Ms Armstrong: In Committee I promised that we would produce an effective regime for the payment of the inspectorate, which will be a balance between Government grant and contributions from local authorities, and I shall fulfil that promise. That will be the way in which we will measure the additional contribution that local government will have to make. As the hon. Gentleman conceded in his speech, there will none the less be savings. On that basis, I conclude my remarks.
Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

SECRETARY OF STATE'S POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 10, line 20, leave out paragraph (d)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 7 and 9.

Mr. Jones: The Government have introduced three amendments to clause 14, which are all technical and intended to clarify its effect. I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 3 and 4, the first of which paves the way for the other.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 have been introduced to make a technical change to clause 14. They would make what was paragraph 14(2)(d) into a free-standing subsection. Hon. Members will note that the wording of the new provision would remain identical to that of the original, and would not extend the powers of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly in any way. The amendment has been proposed simply to clarify the scope of the existing provisions.
Amendment No. 5 deals with a number of situations in which the exercise of subsection 14(5) powers by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly might cause difficulties. These relate to cases in which there is a right of recourse to the Secretary of State, or he has an existing role or power in relation to a best value authority. Amendment No. 5 is designed to clarify the operation of the clause in such situations and tackles the problem by introducing two new subsections to clause 14. I emphasise that the circumstances in which the provision would apply are exceedingly rare.
6.30 pm 
We have always maintained that intervention under clause 14(5), where the Secretary of State takes over responsibility for a function, would be the exception, not the norm, and that it would be to address the very worst failure in service delivery. We envisage that, in the handful of cases where a direction was issued under clause 14(5), most often, the Secretary of State would not exercise the function himself, but would appoint an independent person to carry it out. Where nominees were appointed, they would, in most cases, be considered to be independent from the Secretary of State, and the difficulties that I outlined relating to the Secretary of State's powers would not arise. Although the circumstances in which the provisions would be necessary are very rare, the amendment is essential for ensuring the proper function of the clause in all circumstances.
I stress that Lords amendment No. 5 is not about increasing the powers of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly, but about ensuring that their existing roles and powers can continue to be exercised sensibly. When the Secretary of State takes over a function, he does so on behalf of local people to ensure that a higher standard of service is delivered. Local people's rights of appeal and other such entitlements should not be compromised to enable that to happen. The amendment will help to ensure that such a circumstance does not arise.
Lords amendment No. 9 is technical and ensures that the new regulatory powers that we propose to introduce under clause 14(5A)(a) can be used effectively in Wales. The Bill provides that the National Assembly will exercise the full range of intervention powers set out in clause 14(5). The Secretary of State will not take action under that clause in respect of failure in Wales, as he has no powers to do so. Where the Assembly wishes to make regulation in respect of functions where powers have been transferred to it, it is a relatively straightforward process. However, there will be some cases where the Assembly intervenes under clause 14(5) and judges it necessary to make use of the consequential regulatory power at clause 14(5A)(a), but in an area where powers have been reserved to the Secretary of State. If those regulatory provisions are necessary, it is clearly unsatisfactory to leave the Assembly with no powers to make them as that would either lead to the creation of mutually conflicting provisions or, worse still, inhibit the Assembly from taking clause 14(5) action at all, even where it is the most appropriate form of intervention.
Lords amendment No. 9 addresses the potential anomaly by providing that in circumstances where the Assembly might wish to make regulatory provision in respect of a reserved area following intervention, it may do so, but only with the express approval of the Secretary of State. The Government believe that that is consistent with the principles of Welsh devolution, but will ensure that the National Assembly has the same flexibility to use the powers in clause 14 as would be available to the Secretary of State in England. That will provide consistency and ensure that the National Assembly will have the same freedoms to act to protect the interests of local people in Wales as exist elsewhere.
Lords amendment No. 7 is technical. Clause 27(2) lists the order-making and regulatory powers that, in England, would be subject to the negative resolution procedures of either House of Parliament. The amendment adds the new regulatory powers set out in Lords amendment No. 5 to that list.
Lords amendment No. 6 is also technical. Hon. Members know that the Government's approach to commencement is designed to provide best value authorities with some certainty about when their statutory obligations will begin, while providing an opportunity to commence certain provisions promptly, where it is sensible or helpful to do so. The amendment will help to achieve that by allowing, if necessary, early commencement of provisions relating to police and fire authorities in both England and Wales. The previous wording of clause 26 did not achieve that and we have therefore made this necessary adjustment to allow the Government to align commencement of best value for those authorities in both countries.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am delighted to respond to the amendments and even more delighted to see almost as many Ministers as Government Back Benchers. I cannot think why they need to demonstrate their performance today, but I suspect the fact that they keep their pagers on will reveal to the House what is in store.
We do not intend to delay the House long, but we have some questions. The Minister described the amendments as technical, tidying-up amendments. We want to test what he means by "technical". By and large, when Ministers say amendments are "technical", they are centralising measures that grab power for the Secretary of State wherever possible.
The amendments are described as technical, but they increase the centralising powers of the Secretary of State's Department. We should not be surprised because the Green Paper stressed that best value was designed to bring about "cultural change", and the Government's 1997 manifesto said:
The basic framework … of local service provision must be for central government.
The amendments show the Government grabbing whatever power they can.
Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are in one sense strictly technical, so my questions seek clarification. On Report in another place, the Minister, Lord Whitty, remarked:
the wording of the new provision remains identical to the original."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
If so, perhaps the Minister can explain why the words have to be changed. Can he confirm that that interpretation is correct? As he said, clause 14(2)(d) permits the Secretary of State to direct an authority
to take such other action as in the Secretary of State's opinion is necessary and expedient".
Crucially, the amendment would permit the Secretary of State to direct an authority to take not "such" but "any" action that he considered necessary or expedient. What is the difference between "such" and "any"? If "any" is the same as "such", why did the word have to be changed? In what circumstances would the Secretary of State take "any" action and what would such action be?
Lords amendment No. 5 extends the powers of the Secretary of State. The Minister was at pains to say that the amendments do not extend his power, but it is nonsense to suggest that. Even a cursory glance at this amendment reveals that it does. It creates a new regulatory power and puts it into the hands of the Secretary of State. Lord Whitty said that its use would be "exceedingly rare" in any circumstances, but it is a far-reaching provision which gives the Secretary of State the power to disapply or modify an enactment that confers a function on him in respect of a function of a best value authority.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be better to leave such a function in the hands of a failing or lamentably inefficient authority than for someone to come in and recognise the importance of getting it discharged efficiently?

Mr. Woodward: The difference between the Opposition and the Government is that the Conservatives believe in local democracy; the electorate can always get rid of councillors—as the Government found out in this year's local elections when they began rapidly to lose seats throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Conservatives do not believe in centralising power; the Government believe in centralising power—giving more and more power to the Secretary of State and taking it away from local authorities.

Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the boot is on the other foot? The intervention by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) referred to the Minister stepping in. There is a great deal of flag waving for that, but the headline in the Municipal Journal is
Intervention 'will be kept to a minimum'".
In other words, the Minister will probably not step in anyway.

Mr. Woodward: As always, the Deputy Prime Minister is all over the shop—or all over the train perhaps, as we have begun to see. He has a disastrous disintegrating transport policy, as well as disintegrating local authority power.
The amendment gives no small power; once again, it is a Henry VIII measure. Secondary legislation will be used, so we have concerns about the amendment—in the context of the centralisation of power to the Secretary of State. Once again, our questions to the Minister are principally about the times when that power would be exercised. It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say that it would be used only in exceptional circumstances. It is in exceptional circumstances that power is abused. It is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the House the precise circumstances in which that power would be used.
The Government should tell us why they are introducing the amendment at such a late stage, if they believe that the matter was such an important part of the Bill all along. The Minister should give the House examples in which the Secretary of State's powers under clause 14(5) would be exercised. Today, the Minister has not justified why there should be such a right of recourse to the Secretary of State and why the Government are unable to trust local democracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) has already expressed some concerns about amendment No. 6 which he may wish to adumbrate. The amendment empowers the Secretary of State to order the early commencement of provisions relating to police and fire authorities in Wales. Ordinary commencement is 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Unamended, clause 28 gave the power to the National Assembly for Wales; amended, it shifts the power to order early commencement of
sections 15 to 17 or section 26",
and the new section on housing benefit and council tax benefit to the Secretary of State. The amendment reduces the commencement order powers of the National Assembly and gives them to the Secretary of State.
Why has the Minister done that? On what occasions would that measure be used? As Lord Whitty said, in another place—[Interruption.] The Ministers on the Treasury Bench are chatting among themselves; they do not want to listen to what their noble Friend said. However, it might be as well if they listened. Lord Whitty said that the measure would allow early commencement
where it is sensible or helpful to do so".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 514.]
Will the Minister tell the House what "sensible" and "helpful" mean in that case, so that we can understand the purpose and meaning of the legislation, instead of the obfuscatory way in which he has delivered the amendments to us today?

Mr. Sanders: The fundamental question has remained unanswered in Committee and in the other place, although perhaps we shall receive a glint of light this evening: what are the exceptional circumstances? Secretaries of State already have powers to intervene in local government—for example, in a social services department. If there is any hint of abuse in a placement, the Secretary of State can intervene. In a failing school, the Secretary of State can intervene. Powers of intervention exist. Why is there a need for additional powers?
In his opening statement, the Minister said that the powers were there to protect local people. What is the purpose of the ballot box in a local election if it is not to give the people the power to remove a failing local authority? Why should a Secretary of State make that decision? Under best value regimes, it is the Secretary of State who sets the standard and monitors whether it is being met. The Secretary of State sanctions and judges whether that standard has not been met. Why is the additional power needed? It would be extremely helpful if we could have an answer on what the exceptional circumstances are.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I should be interested in the answer to a more specific question about the Secretary of State's new powers in the measure. What are the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in local government procedures when the contracting-out arrangements—or non-contracting-out arrangements—are being changed? I have in mind a specific example from my constituency, where confidential council records were abused.
Bearing in mind that such records might end up in the hands of third parties under the new contracting arrangements, I want to know what action the Secretary


of State would take if, for example, a situation arose similar to the one in which we were left in Bromsgrove during the local government election campaign. During the campaign, information was targeted on various named individuals who were eligible for free bus passes. Their names were held in confidence by the local council, but the individuals were specifically targeted, by name, address and a code marking used by the council. They were sent Labour party political propaganda that suggested—from records that should not have been available to the party—that, if the Conservative party were to win in Bromsgrove on 6 May, we would abolish free bus passes. The House will be pleased to hear that we have not done so. What action would the Secretary of State be prepared to take if information was abused in that way?
It transpired that the person responsible for that act was Councillor Peter McDonald, who is now the leader of the Labour opposition on Bromsgrove district council—I am pleased that he is in opposition. The chief executive of the council has given me clarification that those letters were sent and that Councillor Peter McDonald was in possession of the records. The chief executive told me that he had handed a copy of those sensitive records to Councillor McDonald.
When we took up the matter after an article about the abuse of that information had appeared in The Birmingham Post, the chief executive told me
it would seem reasonable to assume that the information used to 'target' the Labour Party literature was largely based on information obtained from Council sources.
His letter continued:
It is fair to point out that Mr Fisher"—
one of the council officials—
initially declined to provide such information and, as a result, was subject to considerable 'pressure' from Councillor McDonald. In eventually yielding to that pressure Mr Fisher told Councillor McDonald of his reservations in supplying the information and indicated that under no circumstances should the data be used for Party political purposes. He also advised Councillor McDonald that before using the information for any purpose he should discuss the situation with myself"—
that is, the chief executive.
The letter continued:
Councillor McDonald chose to ignore this and has never discussed the information, or its use, with me.
In retrospect, and assuming that the Labour Party are unable to offer an alternative version of events, it would appear that Mr Fisher's trust in Councillor McDonald was misplaced.
The letter then goes on to justify the actions of the council officer who handed over the information.
If Councillor McDonald is found guilty of an offence, it could be a criminal offence under the Data Protection Acts. He would be guilty of bringing the Labour party into disrepute. It would seem that a sleaze allegation could be made against Bromsgrove Labour party, and I should be grateful if the Minister clarified whether the Secretary of State's new powers would deal with events such as those.

Sir Paul Beresford: To be helpful to the Minister, my speech will give him time to work out how to respond to the outrageous accusation clearly spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). That councillor's actions are merely a classic example of the sort of behaviour that we remember from many previous occasions and have come to expect.
The amendments are wonderful amendments to an amazing clause. They give huge powers to the Secretary of State, especially amendments Nos. 3 to 5. Any regulation that the Secretary of State likes, he can add to, and any he does not like, he can remove—there is no democracy and no discussion. In Committee, the clause was referred to as the "trust me" clause, and its provisions would suit Ministers if there was a slack local council or a trade unionist who needed to be pleased.
We have heard brave words about how the amendments would enable the Secretary of State to intervene, and the Municipal Journal headline reads, "Intervention 'will be kept to a minimum'" Failures triggering the provisions of amendments Nos. 3 to 5 fall into two groups. The first is "Failures of process", which we are told are unlikely to trigger intervention; the second group is "Failures of substance", which we are told are more likely to trigger intervention.
Under "Failures of process" is listed first:
a failure to consider competition".
That is the crux of getting a decent value-for-money, best-value services, but it is out of the window. Next, we find "a failure to consult", but that could be avoided pretty easily, with a couple of sweeps of the local wards to make sure everything sounds all right. Then, we have
a failure to set performance targets".
I can understand why local authorities might not meet that requirement, especially as they are still awaiting Government guidance on some of those matters. Finally, we have
a failure to publish benchmarking data.
Given the struggle of some of the inner London Labour authorities to find benches, let along benchmarks, one would hardly be surprised if they failed to meet that requirement.
Under "Failures of substance", we find first:
a failure to meet any single national performance standard".
As we feared, the Secretary of State can choose selectively to pick on any local authority that is not in favour that month. A second failure of substance is
persistently high costs not warranted by service excellence or need".
I can think of innumerable Labour local authorities, especially in London, that fail by that standard. Next, we find
a failure to improve standards".
The difficulty with that is that, in some areas, it might be impossible to do so. Take ground maintenance: a dry summer means that grass cutting is kept to a minimum, but a wet summer means that the contractor or the in-house team will struggle to keep up, with the result that the local authority is held to have failed to improve standards. Finally, under "Failures of substance", we find
a failure to act on critical inspection reports".


One of the difficulties with that is that, every so often, there is what one might call an oddball inspector. That provision might mean that a local authority got into distinct difficulties merely because the Secretary of State chose to accept the report of a single oddball inspector.
My greatest concern about the amendments is that they would allow soft joint ventures, local authority company guarantees and even municipal trading. At no stage in proceedings on the Bill have Ministers made it clear that municipal trading will be outlawed. That causes me great concern because, if that matter is not dealt with, we shall have returned to the position of the late 1970s. Compulsory competitive tendering brought local authorities back into line. Many Conservative Members feel that best value is the next logical step from CCT but, the more I listen to the Minister, the greater my doubts about that.
Amendment No. 6 appears to be a reshuffle of the original amendment, but the original concern stands. We expect Royal Assent on this Bill in August 1999 and the Bill should come into force in autumn 2000, but many local authorities are way behind in preparing for best value. They have mixed reasons for that—some are waiting for Government guidance. We need to recognise that it will be at least five years—2005—before the best value programme is fully up and running and we can expect to see any results from it. Meanwhile, there is a great clamour to get rid of CCT, which goes on 2 January 2000, five years before the best value results can be expected. To the recipients of services and to those who pay for them, those could be five years of heavy damage.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It would be appropriate if the Minister asked for the leave of the House before replying to the debate.

Mr. Jones: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) entertained the Committee with several speeches, but, as far as this Bill is concerned, he appears to be stuck in a rather schizophrenic state. From his experience in local government, he gives many reasons why local authorities, all carefully chosen to be Labour authorities, did not perform adequately or efficiently. Those comments are balanced by attacks on the Bill for placing too onerous a responsibility on local authorities to perform to standards of efficiency and service that central Government may lay down.
At least the Liberal Democrats are consistent. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) expressed the well-rehearsed argument that there was no reason why the amendment should impose an extra requirement, because the only thing needed to ensure that local government is efficient, effective and incorrupt is the ability of local electors to throw out offending councils at election time. That argument has been used consistently throughout our deliberations on this Bill and others, but if we accept it—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) says that that argument has the merit of democracy, but I shall not embarrass him and bore the House by detailing the many occasions on which Conservative Governments

interfered in, and attacked, local government. Suffice it to say that, now that they are in opposition, the Conservatives continue to attack local government. However, they cannot have it both ways. At least the Liberal Democrats are consistent—wrong, but consistent, and there is merit in consistency. I put it to the hon. Member for Witney that there is nothing but hypocrisy in his arguments—he cannot have it both ways.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) appears to have confused the Bill before the House today, which deals with best value, with a Bill that is to be introduced in the next parliamentary Session, which will deal with ethics in government. In any case, the case that she describes is one that would come before a court. It is not a matter for discussion in the context of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Witney asked why the word "any" was used instead of "such" in amendment No. 4. The word "such" would be used in a clause with more than one provision, but if it stands alone, "any" is better drafting. It is simply a drafting point, and there is no other significance.
In amendment No. 5, new subsection 5A provides the Secretary of State with a regulation-making power to make consequential arrangements that include disapplying or modifying existing legislation, and specifies the circumstances in which the power would apply. Hon. Members will note that the scope of the provision is very narrow and will apply only in cases where the Secretary of State has a function in respect of a best value authority and where he has issued a direction under subsection 14(5). We expect that to be a rare combination of circumstances.
7 pm
Subsection 5B specifies the nature of the regulations. Again, it is very narrow in scope. The regulations can modify existing legislation, but they will operate only in circumstances in which the Secretary of State wishes to exercise an existing function concurrently with a best value function of the authority.
I shall clarify further why those provisions are needed, by providing an example of the circumstances in which they might be used. The example that the Government provided in another place concerned the Secretary of State's role when exercising a planning function on behalf of an authority. Were he to intervene to take over a planning function, decisions on planning applications would thereafter be made in his name. In the event of planning permission being refused, the applicant would have his usual right of appeal, but that is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I am sure that the House would agree that it would be undesirable for the Secretary of State to determine appeals against his own refusals of planning permission. The new subsection that we are introducing would allow for regulations to be made to make alternative arrangements to deal with the fact that the Secretary of State had taken a decision that was now subject to appeal, and the regulations would be written to ensure that they were consistent with the Secretary of State's role as the planning authority. Similar provisions would need to be made to allow the Secretary of State, for example, to continue to call in controversial planning applications.
Where the regulations proposed are in force, the Secretary of State will still be able to use his call-in power. Those planning applications that he would want to


call in, had the regulations not been in force, would still be subject to a process that is likely to involve a public local inquiry. For cases dealt with in that way, there would not be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State; this is the position now for all cases that are called in. The right to seek judicial review in the courts is still available, of course, and would not be fettered by the proposed regulations.
Amendment No. 6 does not reduce the Assembly's powers, as was rather unbelievably claimed. It never did have the power to act in respect of police and fire authorities. The amendment simply ensures that police and fire authorities in Wales can be treated in the same way as in England.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 30

MAJOR PRECEPTING AUTHORITIES: FURTHER REGULATION

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 18, line 31, leave out ("60(8)") and insert ("70(8)")

Mr. Meale: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
As we heard earlier, this is a minor drafting amendment. The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out in Committee that the reference to section 60 of the Greater London Authority Bill was incorrect. We undertook to change the reference, but to do so at a later stage, in case there were further numbering changes to that Bill. We are now inserting the correct reference to section 70.

Mr. Woodward: We have little to say about the amendment, except to commiserate with Ministers that, after the Department has been so singularly unlucky and won so few Bills, it still manages to be incompetent and get the numbering wrong. None the less, we are pleased that it has finally put its house in order as it prepares for the summer, and we shall not oppose the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1

LIMITATION OF COUNCIL TAX AND PRECEPTS

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 22, line 51, leave out ("section 70") and insert ("sections 70 and 71")

Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 20.

Ms Armstrong: The Greater London Authority Bill is currently being discussed in the other place. In its Committee stage in the House and in the other place, there were amendments to the provisions for substitute calculations. Most of the amendments to schedule 1 to the Local Government Bill reflect those changes to the Greater London Authority Bill. The amendments also make a few changes to ensure that references to the GLA

Bill in the Local Government Bill are accurate and take account of the special arrangements for the budget requirement and tax-setting calculations set out in the GLA Bill. That has necessitated one small consequential amendment.
I apologise for the number of amendments, but I assure hon. Members that they are not substantive. They simply ensure that this Bill and the GLA Bill are consistent in their provisions for the GLA.

Mr. Woodward: I have a small number of questions to the Minister about the amendments. We recognise that, in another place, the noble Lord said that these were all technical amendments—we know what "technical" usually means to the Government—and that they related mainly to the Greater London Authority Bill. He also said that they were not substantive.
Can the Minister confirm to the House that the amendments relate only to the Greater London Authority Bill? If they do not, will she tell the House to which other areas they refer?

Ms Armstrong: With the leave of the House. I said that the amendments related to the changes in the Greater London Authority Bill. Some of them affect the Metropolitan police, but relate to the GLA Bill.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 20 agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Northern Ireland Act Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1999, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 50) on Children's Services (Quality Protects) Special Grants for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 (HC 617), which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Nick Hawkins be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee, and Mr. Michael Fabricant be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Howard Flight be discharged from the Social Security Committee, and Mr. Desmond Swayne be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Shaun Woodward and Mr. Robert Walter be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Laurence Robertson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Since no message has yet been received from the Lords in relation to the Employment Relations Bill, I am now required to suspend the sitting. The Division bells will be rung five minutes before the sitting resumes.

Sitting suspended.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BILL

Lords amendments again considered.

On resuming—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords as follows. The Lords do not insist on their amendment to the Employment Relations Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an amendment in lieu of that amendment, to which they desire the agreement of the Commons. They agree without amendment to the amendment proposed by the Commons to the remaining Lords amendment.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords amendment in lieu, in page 8, line 20, at the end to insert the words—
("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (1)(a) of this section so long as—

(a) there is no inhibition in the contract of employment of the worker receiving the same from being the member of any trade union, and
(b) the said payments of higher wages or rates of pay or overtime or bonuses or the provision of other benefits are in accordance with the terms of a contract of employment and reasonably relate to services provided by the worker under that contract.")

As my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey has explained in another place, the Government are prepared to accept the amendment in the spirit of partnership—[Interruption.] I knew that that would wake them up and get them going.
It was our intention to replace the power in clause 17 with a substantive provision. Unfortunately, that proved not to be possible in the time available. We had informal consultations with interested parties that revealed complications. Ultimately, we judged that it would be better to give ourselves more time to address the issue. Nevertheless, I shall take this last opportunity briefly to restate the Government's position.
We made it clear, in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper and subsequently, that current law allows the employer and worker, if they wish, to conclude a contract in terms that differ from those in a collective agreement that would otherwise apply to the worker. That is the position now, and it will continue to be the position once the scheme for statutory trade union recognition is in place.
Collective agreements are, of course, increasingly sophisticated, and many already provide flexibility—in the form of performance-related pay and benefits, for example—so that employers who have negotiated such agreements may feel no need to negotiate different terms for individual workers. However, other employers may wish to do so. They are free to do so, and they shall continue to be free to do so. The only proviso is that, in doing so, they must not discriminate unlawfully—for example, on grounds of race, sex, disability, or trade union membership or non-membership.
We believe that employees should be protected against dismissal or detriment if they refuse to give up the terms of a collective agreement. It should not be permissible, for example, for an employer to say, "Unless you agree to an individual contract and give up the collective agreement, I'll see you're never promoted again." We shall continue working to draw up regulations to protect workers from such pressure.
We agree with the Opposition, however, that the mere fact that one worker has received benefits under an individual contract cannot constitute a detriment for those who do not receive such terms. Obviously it will remain unlawful to link the granting or withholding of benefits to a worker's membership or non-membership of a trade union.
The Government should have preferred to deal with those matters somewhat differently in regulations, but we accept that the point was particularly important to the Opposition. We have been willing, therefore, in partnership, to compromise on an amendment that will allow the Bill to complete its passage today, so that the wider benefits that the Bill will confer may commence without delay.
I should also like to take this opportunity to say that the Bill has now involved—in constructive work—two years of my life. I give my thanks to the social partners—particularly the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, but also others—with whom I have worked, over the past two years, in preparing the White Paper and subsequently the Bill.
God willing, the House will today pass the Bill, making it the Employment Relations Act—which will help to modernise workplace relations; help people to combine work and family responsibilities; underpin a flexible and efficient labour market; and help business to attract and retain the skilled work force necessary if they are to compete and succeed. The Act will also ensure that workers receive the proper rights at work that they should have had and maintained in the 18 years of the previous, Tory Government.
The Government are ensuring that, from day 1 of their employment, every British worker—full-time, part-time, temporary, casual or agency worker—is treated with compassion and as employers' most important asset. If an employee wishes to join a trade union, to be represented


by that union and to work for others to be represented by that union, they will not suffer a sacking or other detriment for that important task.
I am proud of the Government's achievements in this area. I hope that the House will pass the proposal from the Lords so that we can get on with rolling out the rights in the Bill for millions of workers in Britain.

Mrs. Angela Browning: In the spirit of partnership, we are glad to have been of assistance to the Government in enabling them to incorporate this amendment in the Bill before it becomes an Act tomorrow. We are pleased to have been able to modify what we believe to be, in principle, a damaging Bill.
When the Conservatives tabled this amendment in Committee in another place, assurances were given by Ministers. Interestingly, many of the changes to the Bill in another place were due to the fact that Ministers there appeared to have some experience of running businesses, and were therefore much more receptive to many of the Conservative amendments.
In Committee, the Government seemed to support my noble Friend Baroness Miller who tabled the amendment and took it through the other place. Ministers in another place promised that they would bring back a modified amendment on Report. On that basis, the Conservatives were asked to withdraw the amendment. I am pleased that my noble Friend did not do so because it was subsequently put to a vote, which the Conservatives won.
Therefore, the amendment came back here, and only last Wednesday the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry tabled an amendment not to modify the Bill—as promised by Ministers in the Lords—but to overturn the amendment that the Conservatives had won in another place. I accept the contrite tone of the Minister's contribution tonight, but this was a matter of ministerial honour, as has been made clear in another place and here last Wednesday.
Ministers who give their word that they will bring an amendment back on Report or at Third Reading and then fail to do so are duty-bound, as members of the Government, to try to keep their word. I am grateful, now the amendment has come to the Commons, that Ministers have sought to rectify the matter tonight.
Much valuable time could have been saved last Wednesday if Ministers had tabled such an amendment then because, as we know, the Bill was guillotined and yet—quite properly—we had spent some time discussing clause 15 last Wednesday, which is a matter of some concern both here and outside this place.
I am not sure that we would wish to be regarded as partners in this matter, but we are pleased to have been able to advise the Government, and that they have accepted the amendment. We are particularly pleased that honour has been seen to be upheld within the ministerial team.

Mr. David Chidgey: I can understand the Minister's feeling of elation tonight, as it has taken some two years to get to this stage. The Liberal Democrats welcome much in the Bill, and we have long argued for many of the issues in it.
If I have a criticism, it is that, in spite of the Bill taking two years, many of the amendments for which we called in Committee have appeared only in the last week or so. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the Minister and his team, who have heard some of the pleas that we have made and incorporated our views in the Bill. For that reason, I am pleased to say that I wish the Bill to go forward. It is a first step—but not the last step—towards fairness at work.

Lords amendment in lieu agreed to.

PETITIONS

Hunting with Dogs

Angela Smith: I am pleased to present a petition from my constituents in Basildon and East Thurrock. I agree with the petitioners, who ask for the hunting of wild mammals with dogs to be banned because it is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in modern Britain. The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to act to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition.
To lie upon the Table.

Ring and Ride

Mr. Ian Stewart: It is my pleasure to present a petition signed my constituent Sandra Dutson and more than 10,000 other users and supporters of Greater Manchester Accessible Transport Ltd., otherwise known as Ring and Ride. The petition states:
The present system of rebates of fuel duty paid to commercial passenger transport companies who operate scheduled public transport services is not paid to ring and ride or dial-a-ride services. We consider that this system unfairly discriminates against persons with mobility difficulties, to whom these services are the equivalent of normal bus services, which they are physically unable to use.
To lie upon the Table.

State Pensions

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Steve Webb: It has been my happy privilege to conduct several Adjournment debates recently. After the past two, members of the public have sent me copies of letters to the Minister who responded, complaining that the response was inadequate. One was a Trade and Industry Minister and the other, I regret to say, was the Minister who is to respond tonight. The public felt that he had not dealt fully with the complexities of annuities.
Were I a Minister, in normal circumstances I would bring along 12 minutes of material and extemporise for three minutes in response to the speech. Given that we have the best part of two hours in which to explore this issue fully, and that the Minister will have cleared his diary until 10.30 pm, I will flag up for him at the outset the questions to which I seek answers.
The move to the new national insurance recording system, NIRS2, has caused delays in the payment of the state retirement pension. Given the time available, I thought of multiplying my questions, but I have decided to restrain myself to only five. I hope, however, for a full and comprehensive response.
Basic state pensions are paid more or less in full, but there are serious problems with the state earnings-related pension, SERPS, and possibly more than 100,000 pensioners are receiving something based on a clerical calculation. As I understand it, someone at the Contributions Agency has sat down with a pocket calculator, dug out the files and worked out how much the SERPS figure should be. When will those estimates be adjusted so that people receive the correct amount?
My second question is about the interest on the money that people have not yet received. When will it be paid? Some of the delays have been for months and for hundreds of pounds, so there is a problem with the interest that has been foregone. I hope that the Minister will say when it will be paid.
My third question has to do with the future and people eligible for state pension when they reach 60 or 65. By what date will newly retired pensioners get the correct pension amount from day one of their eligibility?
Fourthly, who pays the compensation bills which, if one includes age-related rebates, run into tens of millions of pounds? I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance about the private sector's contribution to the compensation bills.
Finally, what lessons have the Government learned from the pension payments fiasco? I hope that the Minister will tell us about the inquiry that has been launched, who is leading it and what its terms of reference are. When will the inquiry report, and whose head is on the block?
I hope that the Minister will respond point by point to those five headline questions. The matter has been tackled twice by the Public Accounts Committee. The Committee's 22nd report, entitled "Delays to the New National Insurance Recording System", was published earlier this month. Rather alarmingly, given that the

Committee's first investigation was published in June 1998, the July 1999 report found that matters were "much worse".
The Minister may take some comfort from the fact that the contracts were signed by the previous Administration. He may consider the problem to be a Tory bungle, which of course it was. However, the Minister has been in his post for nearly a year, with responsibility for pensions for a significant part of that time. The Public Accounts Committee states that matters have got worse rather than better in the past 12 months, so I am sure that the Minister will say, "Mea culpa", lay his hand on his heart and admit his share of the blame for this worrying matter.
Today, the Government produced their annual report. I understand that people can get two Tesco club card points for buying it, and that is all that it is worth. I looked for an apology to pensioners for the delays in payment of their state retirement pension but, curiously, apology found I none. The Minister is welcome to intervene to tell where in the annual report that apology occurs, or where the report mentions that more than 250,000 pensioners have not received the pension to which they are entitled. Any review of the past 12 months should at least mention that, but I cannot find one. I cannot decide whether the report is shameless or shameful—it is both, I think—but, on pensions, it is misleading in the extreme.
The first of the five questions that I put to the Minister relates to the clerical estimates of SERPS pensions that are currently in payment. A constituent of mine—whom I shall call Mr. N, for the purposes of anonymity—was 65 in Christmas week last year. The Government gave him a Christmas present, which took the form of not paying his proper pension. When he received his pension book, he discovered that, instead of getting about £100 a week of basic state pension and SERPS, he received only the basic state pension.

Mr. Bob Russell: Scrooge.

Mr. Webb: Scrooge indeed. Many pensioners would not have been aware that there was anything wrong. The complexities of SERPS are beyond many of us. A less alert pensioner than Mr. N would not have noticed a problem. However, Mr. N had done something astute a couple of years previously. I suspect that not voting Labour might also be considered astute, but I have in mind the request that he sent to the Contributions Agency for a pensions forecast. The agency told him that he would be entitled to about £35 a week of SERPS.
Strangely, although the Contributions Agency knew two years ago that Mr. N was entitled to SERPS of at least £35 a week, and I cannot envisage any circumstances in which that figure would have decreased in the two years—unless I am much mistaken, it could only increase—the Government were none the less unable to pay him the money that he was told he was entitled to then. They paid him only the basic pension.
Mr. New is an astute gentleman, as I mentioned, so he contacted me. I took up his case with the Minister and, a matter of weeks ago, Mr. New received a letter from the Department. Having received it, he rang my office because it contained words to the effect of, "We are prepared to have a guess. We'll have a stab at what we think you're entitled to. If it is too little, we'll pay you the balance. If it is too much, we'd like it back."
Mr. New was understandably rather concerned—genuinely concerned. The Public Accounts Committee raised this issue in the abstract, but here is a real person asking whether he should take the money. This gentleman was sufficiently unsure as to what the letter meant and how certain or otherwise the money was that it created genuine uncertainty for him. He did not know whether to say yes to an extra £35 a week, plus back-pay of nearly £800. We advised him that he should take the money, but that there was a risk that the Government would want some of it back. Fortunately, he had his pension forecast, so it was pretty clear that there would not be a problem.
What is bizarre is that the Government were able to send out letters two years ago to tell people what they were entitled to—presumably the letters are still on file somewhere—with what was presumably rather prehistoric technology and yet, knowing that the new system was not working, they could not even make a guess at their SERPS pension.
Mr. New got round the problem. He was given £10 in compensation, as 160,000-plus retirement pensioners have been. Mr. New said that he rang up and asked whether it was a joke. The person at the other end of the line said, "Well, yes. It is rather a joke." Mr. New was offended by the £10, but that is all that he has had so far.
Mr. New now has some money—he has back-pay to his birthday, just before Christmas, and he is getting what the Government thought that he should be entitled to in SERPS when they wrote to him two years ago. However, Mr. New, as far as I am aware, went on working and accruing SERPS entitlements. Therefore, even now and despite all the fanfare, he is still not getting his full SERPS pension. Every week, another pound or two is being added to the arrears that the Government owe him, to say nothing of the £800 back-payment, which he has just received and on which he has had no interest.
The key question for the Minister is, when will Mr. New and other constituents who have had clerical estimates of their SERPS entitlements get the correct amount? When will they know that they do not have to pay anything back? When will the problem be resolved for those people?
Secondly, when will the interest be paid? The case of Mr. H from Yate in my constituency illustrates that problem. He had the misfortune to be 65 in September 1998. He had a rather larger SERPS entitlement—I think, of the order of £45 a week—and he had also sent off for a pension forecast a couple of years earlier. He knew that the figure was too low. He told me that he could not manage on the basic state pension alone, so he deferred his retirement. He took a part-time job to make ends meet. Essentially, a year of his life, when he would perhaps have wanted to spend time with his family, was spent trying to make ends meet because of a Government bungle.
Let us remember that we are talking about someone who was told a couple of years ago that he was entitled to that £40 to £50. The Government knew about it then and yet they were incapable of delivering it to him last September. Mr. H delayed until late spring or early summer before seeing me. I initiated contact with the Minister and Mr. H has received a lump sum of a little under £2,000. When one is talking of those sorts of

figures, one starts to ask about interest forgone. Mr. H, too, was getting only a clerical estimate of SERPS entitlement—he is still not getting his full pension.
When will the interest be paid and how much? What interest rate will the Government use? Pensioners often get a reasonable rate of return on their savings in specified investments. What is more to the point, they may have had to run down savings that were in illiquid forms, which they had perhaps planned to use later in their retirement. How confident is the Minister that my constituent will be properly compensated for interest forgone? What additional compensation will he receive for having to defer his retirement? Doing so changed the course of his life—how will the Government compensate him?
Having asked when clerical assessments will be sorted out and when interest will be paid, my third question is when will newly retired pensioners have their pensions handled right on day one, on their 65th or 60th birthday? As the Minister knows, I tabled several written questions in the week before this debate to ensure that I was as well informed as possible. I asked for an update of the April written answer on progress in rectifying the problems with NIRS2, the national insurance recording system. Much to my regret, he adopted increasingly obfuscatory tactics by referring me back to the answer given in April. That raises some interesting questions. Have there been no developments worthy of report since April?

Mr. David Rendel: It has got worse.

Mr. Webb: It is difficult to say; I hope that the Minister will tell us. As he suggested, I looked back at the April answer. In response to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), no less a person than the Secretary of State said:
It is planned that the Benefits Agency's review of cases will be completed in six months."—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 591.]
That suggests that all the pensions payments problems will have been sorted by 21 October. I do not think that that promise refers to the age-related rebates for personal pensions. I think that that is a different matter but I may be wrong. My reading of the written answer is that six months from that date, everyone currently receiving a pension will be getting the right amount and that newly retired people will get the right amount from day one. The Minister is welcome to vary or clarify that pledge. I am worried that he felt that referring back to that written answer was an adequate response, given that the Public Accounts Committee thought that things had not stayed the same but got worse. Its report criticised the Contributions Agency for not owning up to the fact things were getting worse. I am alarmed by the Minister's reticence, although I understand it.
My fourth question is who foots the bill for compensation and how much will it be? I have asked several questions about that but the reply has been that the Government will not know until they have finished. They do not yet know how much it will be. Some 167,000 pensioners have had £10 each, so the Government have already spent £1.7 million, to say nothing of compensation of more than £30 million paid to personal pension providers. That is £20 million less than the Treasury thinks that it has gained by holding on to the cash. There is a £20 million black hole there. Who will pay for it?
I thought that the whole point of the private finance initiative was to transfer risk from the public to the private sector. There is no point in having the public sector underwrite PH projects because that is the only incentive that the private sector has to perform. I do not know the nitty-gritty of the contracts between Andersen Consulting and the Contributions Agency but the whole thing seems to have been handled appallingly. I hope that the Minister will assure us that Andersen Consulting will foot the bill to the extent that the problems are of its making. The public sector deserves no less. The House would be worried about any further PH projects if a precedent is set whereby the private sector partner can perform appallingly—it seems to have been a shambles on both sides—without footing the bill. I hope that the Government can assure us that, apart from their little windfall in respect of age-related rebates, the compensation and the interest forgone will be paid by the private sector.
I want to pass on to the Minister something that one of my constituents told me. Mr. H rang the Benefits Agency in Bristol to ask if it could help him with his problem. It was at a loss and did not know what to say. He heard one of the people there say, "help" on the phone. I am alarmed that in 1999, when the problem was well known to Ministers, officials of the Department concerned could not brief members of the public.
I have heard something more alarming. When Mr. H recently phoned the Contributions Agency to say that he had been told that the new system was in place, someone told him that it had been running for three months but that half of what it was getting was still rubbish and had to be sent back. I find that deeply depressing. Is the Minister aware that those receiving the output from that computer hold that view? I understand that the slogan is "garbage in, garbage out". I fear that that is still the case for far too many people.
Finally, what lessons have been learned from this fiasco? I understand that supervision of the Contributions Agency is now being transferred to the Inland Revenue and the Treasury. However, I hope that the buck will not be passed in that process. I am glad to see that the Minister of State, Department of Social Security is responding to the debate—presumably because he is responsible for paying out the money, even if he is not responsible for working out how much should be paid. I assume that that is the distinction.
What lessons have been learned? Who is leading the internal inquiry? What are the terms of reference? What is the time scale for the inquiry? Whose head is on the block? I sense that an inquiry might not be taking place; there has been no mention of one in the written answers. However, 250,000 pensioners have been short-changed by the Government. The Government's glossy annual report contains plenty about what they have done for pensioners, but one would have thought that many pensioners would been happier to have had their pension paid in full and on time—instead of all the gimmicks.
It is vital that lessons are learned from this fiasco. I am pleased that the Minister has plenty of time both to answer my questions and to tell us how he will prevent such a fiasco from ever happening again. I look forward to his response.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on his success in securing the debate; I shall endeavour to respond fully to all the points that he made.
The Government recognise that this is a most important issue, which causes concern and uncertainty for thousands of pensioners throughout the country; we very much regret the inconvenience, the disruption and, in some cases, the financial difficulty that has been caused to them. I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the matter, and to inform hon. Members of the progress that we have made.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the difficulties are now significantly behind us. However, it will take some months to complete checks on all the benefit claims awarded when the problems were at their height last year. Only then will we be able to state for sure that people have received all the benefit that is due to them. However, we are determined that that will be the result of the process.
I acknowledge the concerns that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman and by scores of other hon. Members who, like him, have written to me about these difficulties on behalf of their constituents. I will respond to the points that have been raised in a moment. However, first, I remind the House of the background.
The delays that we have heard about in this debate resulted from problems with the replacement of the national insurance recording computer system—the replacement is known as NIRS2. The contract to deliver NIRS2 was awarded, and the project delivery structure was set up by the previous Conservative Government in 1995—as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. The system was initially supposed to be fully operational by 10 February 1997. However, it was not and, at the general election in May 1997, we inherited a project that was already facing substantial difficulties.
Our strategy for dealing with it has been twofold: first, to minimise the problems for those who depend on contributory benefits; secondly, at the same time, to secure the substantial long-term gains offered by NIRS2 for the effective operation of the benefit system. We wanted to achieve both those objectives, so we implemented robust contingency arrangements to minimise disruption for people, including making emergency payments and carrying out clerical calculations of benefit entitlement. By Friday, clerical calculations had been carried out in more than 13,600 cases.
I want to clarify one point made by the hon. Gentleman. When a clerical calculation has been carried out, we can be pretty confident that the result is correct. Clerical calculations offer a quicker way of getting to the answer than waiting for the current process of reviewing all claims to end. In cases where a clerical calculation has been carried out, the correct benefit is already in payment—in other words, it is not an estimate.
We were particularly anxious to minimise the serious financial difficulties that could have arisen for some—the hon. Gentleman has quoted a couple of cases. We have taken steps to compensate those who have been adversely affected, despite our contingency arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, more than 160,000—in


fact, 167,000—pensioners were compensated for delayed payments between April and June this year, with further payments under the Department's special payment scheme automatically being considered as cases are reviewed. When the review process has been completed, everyone will have received all the pension and other contributory benefits due to them, together with any compensation due.
The hon. Gentleman has asked what interest rate is payable in those circumstances. The normal building society rate is applied; however, no compensation is payable unless certain conditions are met. First, the delay must have been at least eight months; that is the normal rule applied by the Department in respect of delays in retirement pensions. Secondly, the amount that has not been paid must be at least £100. Thirdly, the amount of compensation payable based on building society interest rates must be at least £10. Those are the standard rules applied by the Department in respect of compensation for delayed payment of retirement pensions.

Mr. Rendel: What would happen in a case of a pensioner being able to prove that, for one reason or another, he had to withdraw savings from a fund that paid a higher interest than the normal building society interest rate; or he had to borrow money and so had to pay interest at a considerably higher rate, which he would not have had to do had his pension been paid on time? Would not such circumstances make a case for compensation paid at a rate rather greater than the building society rate?

Mr. Timms: No one has given me any such example, but it is not our intention to vary the long-established rules for compensation in such cases. The procedure is well established and we anticipate that we shall continue to operate it.
It has also been important to ensure that NIRS2 is delivered successfully, so that its potential for supporting welfare reform in future is fully realised. We worked in partnership with Andersen Consulting on a major review of the system and its problems, so as to get the project back on track. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that those efforts have borne fruit: NIRS2 is a powerful system which will enable important improvements to the benefit system to be made quickly and efficiently in future. I have visited the NIRS2 installation and spoken to those responsible for its development. I am satisfied that it will, in due course, serve us well.
The problems surrounding the system's introduction have rightly been the subject of considerable interest. As the hon. Member for Northavon said, the Public Accounts Committee took evidence from those involved and rightly expressed its concern about the impact of the delays in finalising the correct rate of benefit in payment. However, the Committee recognised that, without the Government's contingency arrangements, the impact would have been much worse. By and large, the contingency arrangements worked well, which is a tribute to those who operated them.
Let me set out in greater detail how the problems arose; in doing so, I shall answer one or two of the hon. Gentleman's points. In spring and early summer last year, we hoped that it would be possible to introduce the new

system during the summer. However, when the system was implemented it became apparent that there were a number of matters to be ironed out before it could be relied on to produce what the Benefits Agency needed. It took some weeks before we were confident about what was being produced.
NIRS2's live facilities for jobseeker's allowance were rolled out on 9 November last year, followed by the other short-term benefit, incapacity benefit, on 18 November. Facilities for the long-term benefits—retirement pension and widows benefit—became available on 6 January this year. NIRS2 has thus been capable of processing new claims to all the contributory benefits since 6 January of this year. The hon. Member for Northavon asked when I expected the system to be able to do that. The answer is that it has been able to do so since 6 January this year.
However, from the beginning of January, we faced a new problem. The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert in these matters, knows that at the beginning of each year, we start to require the national insurance contributions data from the previous tax year in order to establish benefit entitlement. Because of the delays and difficulties since the summer, it had not been possible to load up the data for all those contributions on time.
On 6 January, the system capability was in place, but a large chunk of the data needed was not. About a third of the data had not at that stage been loaded—16 million of the 47 million items for the year. Although the system was capable of processing the claims, the data that it needed to do so were missing in about a third of cases.
The priority at that point was clearly to load up the remaining data as quickly as possible. By the beginning of February, I was becoming concerned about the rate of progress, as there were still 13 million records to go. I commissioned daily reports on the numbers, and during February the number fell sharply, I am pleased to say, to less than 7 million.
Currently, there are just 160,000 records outstanding, the rest having been successfully loaded. In some ways, we are now in a better position than we normally would be at this time of year. The reason is that NIRS2 is a better system than NIRS1 was. Allowing for records that are rejected, as some records always are, and with outstanding queries, NIRS2 has posted about 900,000 more records than NIRS1 had done by a comparable time a year previously. Indeed, the previous year had been a good one for NIRS1. We are now in quite good shape in terms of the data loaded to the system, and we are starting to see improvements in performance from NIRS2, vindicating our commitment to making it work well.
For the 1998–99 tax year, there are 46 million items to be posted. The target is for 98 per cent. of them to be posted by 31 December this year. The national insurance contributions office of the Inland Revenue, which is now responsible for NIRS2, is two weeks ahead of schedule for hitting that target, boosting our confidence that we have a good system for the future.
I and the Government apologise unreservedly to those who have been inconvenienced and, in some cases, distressed by the problems that have occurred. I have no hesitation in putting that apology on the record.
The hon. Member for Northavon referred to a couple of his constituents who had been particularly inconvenienced. I am not aware of the case of the person


whom he introduced as Mr. N but went on to refer to as Mr. New. The hon. Gentleman may want to tell me more about that, and I shall be happy to investigate.
The other constituent whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned was Mr. H, who I think has appeared on HTV West to speak about his problems, so I do not think that there is much reason for anonymity in that case, but I shall respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman referred to him as Mr. H. I know that that case has been resolved. The arrears due to Mr. H were paid within a couple of weeks of the hon. Gentleman writing to me about the difficulties that his constituent faced.
I pay tribute to staff in the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency, which is now the national insurance contributions office of the Inland Revenue, and to staff in Andersen Consulting, who have worked extraordinarily hard to resolve the difficulties and have put us in a relatively happy position.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the review process. We have completed about 30 per cent. of the process so far, and I am hopeful that it will be completed by the end of the year. By that stage, we will ensure that everybody has received all of the benefits, plus any compensation, due to them.

Mr. Webb: The Minister has announced a further slippage in the completion date. He said previously that the review would be completed six months from 21 April, which is 21 October. Last week, when I asked him for a report on progress to date, he referred me to the April date. When did he learn about the slippage to the end of December and why did he not have the grace to respond accordingly to my question last week?

Mr. Timms: I am bringing to the House the best current information: the whole process will be completed by the end of the year. Of course, if it is possible to conclude sooner, we shall do so. However, I am advised that we can anticipate the completion of the process by the end of the year.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that more than a quarter of a million pensioners had received incorrect pension payments. That is not the case. Some 285,000 pensioners are having their payments reviewed through this process, but all of those payments were not wrong. Of the 30 per cent. of cases that we have reviewed so far, we have found errors in about 10,000. Thirty per cent. of 285,000 cases is about 90,000 cases, but errors were found in 10,000 of them. Of those, the great majority of pensioners were underpaid, so we shall increase their payments in order to put things right.
However, a small number of pensioners were overpaid and, as the hon. Gentleman said correctly, in those circumstances people have been asked to indicate an understanding that they will need to pay back the overpayment. Matters are in hand to put that into effect. Anybody who has difficulties in the meantime may contact the national insurance benefit task force.

Mr. Michael Trend: I seek clarification about what will occur in the case of overpayment. The Minister said, in a rather sinister manner, that he was putting matters in hand. What will happen to people who have been overpaid a relatively modest amount, who have spent the money in good faith because they did not

understand the original advice that they should hold back, and who did not know their genuine position? Will the Government pursue such people in law in order to recover the money overpaid?

Mr. Timms: Any such case will, of course, be handled with sensitivity by the agency. However, as I have said—and this was a feature of the speech by the hon. Member for Northavon—people were asked to indicate that they understood that that was a possibility. It was absolutely right that that should have occurred, and payments were made on that understanding.
The national insurance benefit task force was set up to help resolve some of those difficulties. It may be helpful if I read into the record both the address and the telephone number of that task force, which has been established to assist people who are experiencing difficulties or who have queries about the problems that we have discussed this evening. The postal address of the task force is: PO Box 6, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE98 1XB. The telephone number is: 0845 6010586, which is a local-call-rate number. Anyone who has a query about these matters is welcome to call that number at any time between 8.30 am and 4.30 pm, Monday to Friday.
People also have the option of contacting their Member of Parliament, as hundreds of them have done. If their MP then writes to me, I can give an assurance that problems such as those that have been highlighted by the hon. Gentleman will be dealt with promptly, as they were in the case of Mr. H. The hon. Gentleman wrote on 16 April, and full payment was made on 30 April. The hon. Gentleman will therefore accept that the issue was swiftly resolved once it had been drawn to our attention. It is our firm intention that such hardship cases should be resolved speedily.

Mr. Webb: The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I want to be absolutely clear about the situation for people who will retire in future. Is he saying categorically that anyone reaching 60 or 65 will now get the correct, full pension from day one, and that we shall not have to write to him henceforth about new cases?

Mr. Timms: I certainly hope so. In the old days with dear, old NIRS1, there was the occasional error, and I cannot give an absolute commitment that there will never be an error in future. I certainly hope that there will be none. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the NIRS2 functionality is now fully in place and there is no problem in calculating the benefits, as there certainly was until 6 January, and then, because of lack of data, for several months earlier this year. I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks.
I was asked how much compensation we expect to pay in total. I said that £1.67 million has been paid in the £10 payment category. We estimate that ultimately about £7 million of compensation will be payable. About £3 million of that will be paid through the £10 special scheme, and £4 million under the Department's normal compensation arrangements, which I outlined earlier in my remarks. To date, we have paid a total of £1.853 million in compensation of both kinds.
The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing about the Public Accounts Committee's recommendations. We are considering them carefully and they will be taken forward by the Inland Revenue, which is now responsible for managing the NIRS2 system in discussion with Ministers. The hon. Gentleman referred to an inquiry. Clearly, that will be a matter for Ministers to consider in their response to the recommendations in the report.
The final point that I want to make relates to the hon. Gentleman's important question about what lessons have been learned from the experience. The most important lesson relates to how such projects should be developed in the future. There was a fundamental flaw in the way in which this project was set up because it was thought that somebody needed to write a detailed specification and hand it over to a firm of consultants. They would then be sent away for a couple of years to build the system according to the specification. On 10 February 1997, the consultants would be brought back to plug in their machine and everything would work.
Of course, that is not a sensible way to try to build an information technology system of this complexity. It might make sense if one is building a bridge or developing a project of the kind that is frequently associated with the private finance initiative. We need a much more partnership-based approach to projects so that throughout the project's development, there will be a close relationship between, in this case, the Department of Social Security or the Inland Revenue and the people doing the work. Changes that are needed over the life of the project and issues that are raised during the work can

then be quickly and sensibly tackled. We can then have confidence that the resulting system will meet the Department's requirements.
That is the biggest lesson to be learned from the problems that we have had with NIRS2, and we are building it into our future planning for modernisation. There is a great need to modernise the systems on which our benefits system depends. We inherited systems that were pretty antiquated in a number of respects, but we have to modernise them in a way that does not lead to a repeat of the difficulties that we have experienced with NIRS2.

Mr. Webb: Will the Minister clarify his response to two of the issues that I raised specifically? First, who will pay the compensation? I am not sure that he told us whether Andersen Consulting will face a big bill and I should be grateful to an answer on that. Secondly, although he said that an inquiry would be the Inland Revenue's business, can he confirm that no inquiry has yet started?

Mr. Timms: On the latter point, we have not yet responded to the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee, but we shall do so. A great deal of work has gone into learning the lessons of what happened with NIRS2. Andersen Consulting has already paid some compensation because of the delays in the project and the matter of whether further compensation will be payable has not yet been determined, but the public purse will be the source of funding for compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Nine o'clock.